Quote from: AnthonyPadua (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=70881.msg882412#msg882412) 5/4/2023, 9:43:23 AM
To clarify, which docuмents infallibly teach geocentrism? I know heliocentrism is ʝʊdɛօ-masonic trickery, but didn't realise that geocentrism was defined as a matter of faith.
Quote It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08208a.htm) Inquisition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm), for the private and personal pleasure of the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) — who knew (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that the course he took could not convict him as pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) — and not of the body which calls itself the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).And von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
Quote The Church never condemned it (the Copernican (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm) system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.It may be added that Riccioli (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13040a.htm) and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm).”
Quote from: cassini on April 30, 2023, 09:03:20 AM
‘Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’--- Fr Paul Robinson SPPX.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok., let us now demonstrate the modernism of this Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. When it comes to 'intellectual philosophers' watch out for the way they phrase things to make them look accurate Church teaching. How this priest is allowed to undermine the SSPX society itself is a mystery. I do know certain SSPX priests have come out against his faith and reason nonsense, but he still gets away with it.
First, like the rest of the Modernists, he uses Pope Leo XIII' Providentissimus Deus to try to Catholicise the heliocentric solar-system Pope Paul V defined as formal (already a long condemned) heresy. He then calls it 'settled science.'
Now anyone who believes heliocentrism is 'settled science,' should go back to school where they will be taught it is no such thing. Such was the results of the 1880 Airy test and the 1887 M&M test that showed no orbiting Earth which meant it was geocentric, that '"true science" scientists' like Roscoe on CIF these days, nearly had a mental breakdown. For 19 years they 'pondered' on how they could rescue the formal heresy. In Albert Einstein they found their man. But the best he could do for them was admit that for 'human science' relativity prevails, that is science cannot prove or falsify either G or H. In other words Fr Robinson, you deceive your readers and listeners when you assert heliocentrism is 'settled science.' But worse than that, you actually offer a defined and declared formal heresy as 'settled science,' that is, a settled truth that can be applied to Sacred Scripture for Catholic hermeneutics and exegeses.
In his quote above he then uses Pope Leo XIII's encyclical as Catholic teaching. As we demonstrated elsewhere, this encyclical contains inferences and contradictions based on the removal of heliocentric books by Pope Pius VII in 1820. The inference is that Pope Leo in this Letter confirmed heliocentrism was no longer a heresy, and the contradiction came when the encyclical stated that when all the Fathers agree on certain understanding of Divine Scripture then it it is certain Catholic teaching. Go read that encyclical again and it does not mention the Galileo case, so cannot be accused of directly stating geocentrism is not not revealed in the Bible. This is a very serious matter that will have to be corrected if Churchmen ever acknowledge the disaster that was the 1741-1835 U-turn on the 1616 decrees.
Next note Fr Robinson's ploy that 'The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science,' trying to get his unfortunate readers and listeners into believing this condition included the greatest scientific question of all, whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric.
Remember now, Fr Robinson's heliocentrism gives rise to every other evolutionary 'settled science' theory of origins invented, whereas geocentrism has no possible 'scientific' explanation for origins. Given the unanimous opinion of the Fathers was geocentrism, every Catholic pope, Cardinal, Bishop, priest or nun, is obliged under pain of committing heresy that the teaching of all the Fathers all believed the Bible reveals a geocentric world.
Fr Robinson then uses Catholic teaching to try to eliminate Catholic teaching: 'Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’
In other words, Fr Robinson infers that the geocentrism of the Bible is not a matter of faith or morals. Here again he tries to tell his unfortunate readers and listeners that He, an expert on St Thomas and biblical studies, is correcting the combined popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633, inferring he is a better theologian than Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmine who wrote:
‘Nor may it be answered that this [Biblical reference to a moving sun] 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).’--- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine: Letter to Foscarini, 1615.
Finally, few are aware of Pope Benedict XV's 1920 encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus that got it right but was ignored because of the 1741-1835 U-turn on heliocentric books caused chaos in Catholic hermeneutics and exegesis. It reads;
‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science [like how the heavens go?]. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature [like sunrise and sunset?]. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks --we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture….’--- Spiritus Paraclitus.
Thank you Pope Benedict XV.
So much for Fr Paul Robinson and his book THE REALIST GUIDE TO [FALSE] RELIGION AND SCIENCE
…Ok., let us now demonstrate the modernism of this Fr Paul Robinson SSPX.…
An excerpt from a review of The Principle:[Dr. Sungenis] thoroughly docuмents the begrudging admissions by Einstein, Lorentz, Eddington, Pauli, Michelson, Hawking, and other cosmologists of much-vaunted stature. Unsurprisingly, those reluctant confessions have received not even a gloss by our anti-Christ culture, institutions, and media. Happily [Dr. Sungenis] quotes respected physicists like Ashok K. Singal who have openly admitted that “the Copernican Principle of Cosmology” is in deep trouble.Level by level [he] builds understanding of successive experiments that have falsified heliocentrism and the Big Bang. We are entertained to follow how Einstein glossed over the contradictions in his theories while still basking in the glow of a fawning media that concealed both his failures and his plagiarism. From Einstein’s never-defined “lambda” fudge factor to the never-observed “dark matter” and “dark energy” fudge factors, [Dr. Sungenis] amuses us with the ever more convoluted efforts to rescue the anti-Creationist theories.NASA and the European Space Agency have sent a series of probes intended to “prove” the homogeneity and isotropy of a supposed Big Bang universe. Such proof would, by inference, demonstrate the insignificance of planet earth and mankind. The outcome? Ever more refined data from higher resolution deep space probes, COBE in 1990, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2013, have demonstrated the opposite, the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the universe with our earthly home at it’s geometric center. The data showed three axes of symmetry intersecting our earth at the center of the universe: (1) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) dipole aligned with the earth’s equator, (2) the CMBR quadrupole aligned with the earth’s ecliptic plane, and (3) concentric galaxy, quasar, and x-ray burst alignment with the earth’s equator and North Celestial Pole.So much for the late Carl Sagan’s fantasy that, “[W]e live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” Quite the contrary, GWW makes the irrefutable case consistent with scientific observation and Scripture that the earth is special and we too are special in our privileged place in the universe. Galileo was wrong and the Church was—and still is—right. You, God, we praise!Some of those begrudging admissions…Albert Einstein (1952):“…Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments…all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.” More on Einstein here (https://judaism.is/big-lies.html#einstein).Stephen Hawking (2010):“One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.”George Ellis (1995):“I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.”Julian Barbour (1989):“…Three and a half centures after Galileo…it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves.”Lawerence Krauss (2006):“…When you look at the CMB map, you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”
"Settled science," my ass!
Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia’s conclusion under the heading of Galileo:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
”Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm) and science (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm), to which special theological (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) importance has been attached in connection with the question of papal infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB). Can it be said that either Paul V (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) or Urban VIII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15218b.htm) so committed himself to the doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) as an article of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01755d.htm), and so to teach as pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) what is now acknowledged to be untrue (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm)? That both these pontiffs (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm), nor that they believed (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) the Copernican (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm) system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) ex cathedra (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm). This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) decree (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm). Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) and his assessors (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01799b.htm)may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) ex cathedra (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm).
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04332a.htm) in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm) doctrines. The sentence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13720b.htm), passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm), but it made no formal decree (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) on the subject, and did not receive the pope's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15218b.htm) signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm); it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11451b.htm). Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declaresAnd von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):It may be added that Riccioli (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13040a.htm) and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm).”
To clarify, which docuмents infallibly teach geocentrism? I know heliocentrism is ʝʊdɛօ-masonic trickery, but didn't realise that geocentrism was defined as a matter of faith.
To clarify, which docuмents infallibly teach geocentrism? I know heliocentrism is ʝʊdɛօ-masonic trickery, but didn't realise that geocentrism was defined as a matter of faith.Geocentrism isn't de fide. Pope Benedict XIV calls it into question in his (non-universal) encyclical on Dante, In Pracelara Summorum.
Of crucial importance in replying to the likes of the above in a Catholic encyclopedia, is that it was not written by Moses or a pope but by theologians like the Ultramontane Dr W. G. Ward (1812-1882), another Protestant convert who became a disciple of Henry Newman. It was Dr Ward’s apologetic summary of the Galileo case that was chosen for a 19th century Catholic Encyclopaedia. You can take it that every person who wrote similar accounts in Catholic encyclopedias were also believing heliocentrists. Proof of this is above when the basis for the argument against papal infallibility is 'Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue?' If this were true, then there could be no papal infallibility. But it is not true so we can dismiss the first half of the above as a deceitful heliocentric doctrine on papal infallibility found in a Catholic encyclopedia.
But most on CIF now accept geocentrism was never proven wrong. So, when Pope Paul V defined and declared Biblical heliocentrism as formal heresy, and Pope Urban VIII confirmed it in 1633, and in many cases professors of philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial docuмents read to them, we can say yes, the papal decree's infallibility did meet all the conditions necessary.
To deny its papal infallibility and binding on all Catholics knowing it was never falsified now, is to deny papal infallibility itself.
The second part of the above dismissal of Papal infallibility is also biased enough to make untrue theological opinions. it states Pope Urban VIII 'clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature.' Pope Urban VIII did not have to make a formal decree because Pope Paul V had already done that. What Urban VIII did was confirm that decree was Papal when in his judgement he said: '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.” If that is not confirmation of the 1616 decree then we are all Protestants.
Note then the absence of the pope's signature in the encyclopedia's statement. In his booklet, THE PONTIFICAL DECREES AGAINST THE Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, AND THE ULTRAMONTANE DEFENCE OF THEM, available on Google, Fr Roberts clearly addressed this; ‘the papal signature or clause Ward said was missing was not used in 1616, as that only came into use years later.' Another no-infallibility point proven false. As Prefect of the Holy Office, the Pope has to approve any conclusion taken by the Holy Office. A signature was not necessary
Finally, unknown to them was that in 1820 Fr Olivieri of the Heliocentrists made this statement:
‘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 the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213.
Now ignore the 'with a devastating motion' bit, for there s another story to that, and you see Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition, finally admits that the 1616 decree against a fixed sun and moving Earth remains an ‘irreversible pontifical decree' while telling Pope Pius VII to remove the Index ban.
Geocentrism isn't de fide. Pope Benedict XIV calls it into question in his (non-universal) encyclical on Dante, In Pracelara Summorum.
Geocentrism should be considered as certainly true since nothing of greater weight contradicts the Holy Office decree which we owe religious assent to.
This non de fide argument is a Dimond Brothers argument. They conjured up this rejection of a papal decree defending an interpretation of all the Fathers, ruled by the Council of Trent as de fide. The Dimond brothers are not the Church, they cannot overrule the teaching of all the Fathers as optional.
Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical In Praeclara Summorum.
Few today are even aware that Pope Benedict XV, on April 30th, 1921, just one year after his teaching encyclical on how the Scriptures reveal all truth, wrote a different kind of papal letter, this one praising the writings of the Catholic poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), famous for his The Divine Comedy, sometimes called ‘the Summa in verse,’ described earlier in our chapter seven, a poetry divided into a journey of three parts, Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory) and Paradiso (Heaven). Dante’s writings reflect medieval Catholicism, when the Catholic faith had reached its peak of blessed understanding.This of course included the doctrine of geocentrism, revealed in Scripture and visible to all as the Creation that God chose so that man might have greater evidence of Him.
Having written in his Spiritus Paraclitus of the dangers ‘physical science’ can cause if it is not the truth, read now as the Pope himself addresses ‘the progress of science’ to Dante’s most famous work The Divine Comedy. Written after the acceptance of Galileo’s cosmology, and unwilling to downgrade the Catholicity of Dante’s description of a geocentric Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, Pope Benedict XV feels he has to rescue all this even ‘if science’ has failed to prove which order is certain. The apparent conflict between the Pope’s faith and ‘science’ in this encyclical does not endorse heliocentrism, nor does it dismiss the authority of the 1616 decision, as some apologists would have us believe, it merely discusses it in regard to what Einstein’s relativity suggested in 1921, in which geocentrism cannot be ruled out.
Encyclical on Dante, to Professors, Students of Literature and Learning in the Catholic World:
‘And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante Alighieri lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From St Thomas he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge; it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art….. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation [Einstein’s relativity], that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in such a way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.’
It has been asserted by men, like the Diamond Brothers and David Palm, that the above encyclical shows the 1616/1633 edict was not an irreversible binding decree because Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. Note the most important sentence above is ‘If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation.’ This is true, for in science, Relativity now prevails, but that still accepts geocentrism and ‘the course of the planets and stars’ of Scripture are still as viable as ever. Given the fact that in Benedict XV’s time geocentrism was still considered falsified by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say the Earth ‘is not at the centre.’ But he did not, nor that the sun does not orbit the Earth, leaving the 1616 decree as defined and declared. One could also say this Pope; with his words ‘may not be,’ did not accept the physical heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ held in Church and State in his time.
In my opinion, the excerpt above from the CE article on Galileo properly explains how the Church’s magisterium is not to be accused of the errors Cassini attributes to it (and consequently, there is no wound to indefectibility, or any need to declare sede vacante from 1616).Magisterium??? What magisterium?
Magisterium??? What magisterium?Actually forget I said anything. It's pointless.
The closest thing to infallibility on the matter is the condemnation of Galileo and it isn't even magisterial.
Magisterium??? What magisterium?
The closest thing to infallibility on the matter is the condemnation of Galileo and it isn't even magisterial.
Magisterium??? What magisterium?
The closest thing to infallibility on the matter is the condemnation of Galileo and it isn't even magisterial.
He's conflating about 3 different issues to continue promoting his Old Catholic ecclesiology.
Gratuitous.
Reality. You conflated the question of whether a decree of the Holy Office is Magisterial and irreformable (there's disagrement on that), and then slide that over into the issue of indefectibility (which entails begging the question, even against your opinion regarding the first) and then claiming the SV principles would require SV from 1616. It's an idiotic conflation of 3 separate issues in an attempt to smear SVs with a false argument ad absurdum that they would hold the See to be vacant since 1616. Idiotic on all counts. Not sure if the conflation was the result of your childish petulance regarding or befuddlement of your foggy mind.
Au contraire:
If the Holy Office decree is not magisterial, then the issue of indefectaility does not arise.
You should read more, and write less.
Correct, which is where you should have stopped. You're the one that started babbling on about indefectibility and a vacant see since 1616.
In my opinion, the excerpt above from the CE article on Galileo properly explains how the Church’s magisterium is not to be accused of the errors Cassini attributes to it (and consequently, there is no wound to indefectibility, or any need to declare sede vacante from 1616).
Sean,
In other words, the condemnations of Galileo were not universal teachings issued to the Church on the question of whether heliocentrism was heresy, but were limited to the issue at hand - condemning Galileo's writings and proscribing them, and him, from opining as written. The assertions of heliocentrism as heresy were tangential to the precise issue and holding, and not an expression of the ordinary, universal magisterium.
Therefore, the Church could change its stance on heliocentrism and allowing its written expressions - that would merely be at the level of a practical, disciplinary change under different historical circuмstances.
Is that a decent summary?
I don't find that particularly comforting - i.e., that the Holy Office, with the pope's approval, could be so "wrong" about what is heresy and contrary to the teaching of the Fathers. The authority of the Church as teacher on issues of faith is still eroded and damaged.
It would seem to me that such a situation implicates - again and again we come back to this - the Church's indefectibility, which, as far as accepted wisdom or expression goes, is not limited to the infallible.
If necessary, I can go get that Canon Smith article about when the Church is indefectible - I believe it would cover things like the Holy Office condemnation of Galileo.
So we are not talking only about ex cathedra, at least under the accepted or conventional understanding.
DR
Quote from: cassini on April 30, 2023, 09:03:20 AM
Pope Leo explicitly states that Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude.