-
Just asking, because I know he considers the encyclical Providentissimus Deus to be a “post-Galileo U-turn” which taught error to the universal Church.
-
Sean, this thread may help answer your objection to the Galileo question:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1683&p=17125&hilit=Galileo#p17125 (http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1683&p=17125&hilit=Galileo#p17125)
-
I remember him not being a sedevacantist. He would argue with them and say that according to their principles they would have to reject all the popes since 1820 instead of 1958, so they are inconsistent.
-
I'm hoping he will address my question. I don't want to argue with him. I find him an interesting character, to be honest.
-
Sean, this thread may help answer your objection to the Galileo question:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1683&p=17125&hilit=Galileo#p17125 (http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1683&p=17125&hilit=Galileo#p17125)
Thanks QVD. I look forward to reading this thread after the kiddies get to bed.
-
Just took a quick peek at the thread referred to by QVD, and John Lane's initial response contains this nugget, which, at first glance, seems reasonable to me:
"One can see, in the light of these observations, the great disservice to truth and to the credibility of the Church which is done by those who go to extremes in their comments and interpretations of this matter. Those who insist that the Church defined the matter when she condemned Galileo create an impossible conundrum, and likewise those who blithely accept that the common interpretation of the Fathers can be tossed aside create a crisis of confidence in the Church and in the truth of Holy Writ. And I think equally problematical are the extreme commentaries which find at the bottom of all modern ills the Heliocentric theory. These commentaries essentially argue that the faith has been destroyed by a theory about which the Church remains silent. That notion is inadmissible, obviously."
-
Just asking, because I know he considers the encyclical Providentissimus Deus to be a “post-Galileo U-turn” which taught error to the universal Church.
I wouldn't be surprised if Cassini is Sungenis-- both are Dogmatic Geo-centrist... :popcorn:
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Cassini is Sungenis-- both are Dogmatic Geo-centrist... :popcorn:
I'm a geocentrist, and I agree with Sungenis about ALMOST everything.
But Cassini's notion that PD taught error to the universal Church brings sedevacantism back to the 1800's.
We just need a couple more Cassini's to get back to Ibranyi (no pope since 1000).
And of course, there can never be another pope again, since the whole church has defected (lest there be a lone bishop in the woods).
All that said, John Lane's previously quoted comment seems to be the most reasonable.
Strange that he does not apply it to sedevacantism itself.
But let's keep the conversation on Cassini's theory.
-
I don't want to argue with him. I find him an interesting character, to be honest.
I also find him interesting. I value his posts.
-
I would also be very surprised if 'Cassini" did not recognise the anti-pope Frank... :jester:
-
edit
-
The talk about geocentrism brought to mind a catechism class that I downloaded from SSPX Asia at least 10-12 years ago (relevant clip attached below). Fr. Scott gets upset that anyone would consider geocentrism true.
I think it is an example of why we need to examine the beliefs that we have picked up from the world, especially "proven science".
-
I don’t believe Cassini holds that the Church actively taught error, just that it tolerated it. Those are two different things. I disagree with Lane’s contention that the toleration of error is not possible.
I believe that the toleration of Molinism was also a mistake, and so were some of the things tolerated by Pius XII.
-
Just asking, because I know he considers the encyclical Providentissimus Deus to be a “post-Galileo U-turn” which taught error to the universal Church.
Why don’t / didn’t you message Cassini discretely?
-
I don’t believe Cassini holds that the Church actively taught error, just that it tolerated it. Those are two different things. I disagree with Lane’s contention that the toleration of error is not possible.
I believe that the toleration of Molinism was also a mistake, and so were some of the things tolerated by Pius XII.
It seems that others in the Canonization thread are saying that the Church actively taught error with respect to Geocentrism (ie. actively taught error before Vatican II).
Knowing the Catholic Church can not universally teach error in faith and morals, can you speak more to this "toleration" here or there?
-
It seems that others in the Canonization thread are saying that the Church actively taught error with respect to Geocentrism (ie. actively taught error before Vatican II).
Knowing the Catholic Church can not universally teach error in faith and morals, can you speak more to this "toleration" here or there?
I fail to see where the Church taught heliocentrism.
-
Just asking, because I know he considers the encyclical Providentissimus Deus to be a “post-Galileo U-turn” which taught error to the universal Church.
I needn't tell you how much trouble my investigation into the history of the Galileo case has got me into. I was banned from three Catholic Forums because of my 30-year research into the Galileo case for a book called The Earthmovers.
Only today, on an academic forum, I commented on a thesis by a man trying to find 'the Theory of Everything.' I said anyone trying to find that theory of everything had best first read the Bible. He replied that he was an atheist and could not agree with geocentrism. He then added 'as an atheist I sometimes feel lonely, but I can imagine that as a geocentrist it must be even lonelier.'
I have read all the comments above and thank you those who put their trust in me and my views. As you know, the Galileo case is one of the most repeated histories of Catholicism and science. To fine-comb the truth took me many years of study, some of the information seemed to fall into my lap out of nowhere. I pray to God it was His doing to get to the truth of a history that challenged the divine protection of His Church and papal infallibility.
Ladislaus and Matto above are correct. I am not a sedevacantist, nor did I find anything in my research to make me one. I have had years of contact with sedevacantists, some even who tried to convert me over to that position, but my faith told me I am not allowed to make such a decision. If it did many more of us would join them as regards Vatican II popes.
The history of the Galileo case took centuries to understand properly. The records in the Secret Archives took ages to come out so that the facts could be known. In 1820, head man in the Holy Office, who admitted the 1616 decree was ireversable and unrevisible, believing heliocentrism was proven, tried to save the Church by saying the infallible definition was a violent heliocentrism, but now that 'modern astronomers' showed it was not a violent heliocentrism, the heresy could be bypassed. In other words Olivieri kept the infallible decree safe, but told Pope Pius VII he could allow books on modern heliocentrism be read and believed by Catgholics. The Pope believed his 'lie,' for the heresy had nothing to do with a violent earth but a fixed-sun. Pius VII said OK, let the books be taken off the Index and in 1835 Pope Gregory XVI did that. Having examined their decrees you will be glad that no pope ever tried to cjhallenge the 1616 decree, the infallible one. All they did was allow heliocentric books to be taken off the Index. Nevertheless, the heresy in them remained heresy.
So we see heliocentrism entered the Church's womb by way of fraud, not by way of doctrinal heresy. From 1820, a heliocentric meaning of Scripture was now allowed, a non-violent one, a 'non-heretical one.'. Once any Catholic, or Pope, who now believed in what was defined as heresy in 1616, did so because they believed it was proven to be so by science, they were no longer guilty of heresy. Their heresy had become material-heresy, which is not a direct deliberate rejection of a doctrinal teaching
Having got their heliocentric reinterpretation of Scripture, Modernists started reinterpreting Genesis in Particular with long ages and evolution. To try to stop this Pope Leo XIII had to bring out an Encyclical in 1893, Providentissimus deus. Now he was a captive of the 1820-1835 ploy of Olivieri's. Accordingly, the encyclical had to contradict itself, first telling all you cannot reinterprit the Bible as the modernists were doing and then having to defend the reinterpretation his predecessor popes did in 1820-35. Thus he included the following in P.D.
‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’
And there is the licence to do another Galileo rereading of Scripture. Proof of this can be found everywhere:
‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn2)
‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice [Galileo’s] in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’ --- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission.
‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible…. “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn3)
‘Galileo’s principle has apparently become the official hermeneutic criterion of the Catholic Church. It is alluded to in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo (1893), referred to in Guadium et Spes of the Vatican Council II (1965).’[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn4)
‘On the other hand, Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn5)
‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn6)
‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between Biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn7)
‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to Biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”.’[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn8)
‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.
‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn9)
‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn10)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref1) James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref2) E. C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref3) D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225.
[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref4) The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367.
[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref5) J. T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.
[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref6) Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68.
[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref7) M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, 2007, p.264.
[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref8) Catholics United for the Faith – what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010.
[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref9) Vatican Observatory website 2013.
[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref10) Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013.
-
Indeed, Providentissimus Deus was another one of those "open the door" moments, similar to that of Pius XII to evolution, or Pius IX to the "invincible ignorance" crowd on EENS.
There's no positive error in the teaching of Providentissimus Deus, in that it's certainly true that sometimes the Sacred Writers did use expressions or figures of speech that were metaphorical rather than "scientific" ... since, after all, the Hebrew language did not have a lot of scientific language. Unfortunately, Leo XIII failed to lay down the rules in terms of where this was permitted and where it was not, to read something metaphorically.
Similarly, Pius XII did not actually teach evolution, but he permitted it to be discussed ... and that was a tragic error.
Between these two tragic mistakes, the Modernists went to town and completely destroyed Sacred Scripture. These types of heretics cannot be given a single inch of leeway.
-
Indeed, Providentissimus Deus was another one of those "open the door" moments, similar to that of Pius XII to evolution, or Pius IX to the "invincible ignorance" crowd on EENS.
There's no positive error in the teaching of Providentissimus Deus, in that it's certainly true that sometimes the Sacred Writers did use expressions or figures of speech that were metaphorical rather than "scientific" ... since, after all, the Hebrew language did not have a lot of scientific language. Unfortunately, Leo XIII failed to lay down the rules in terms of where this was permitted and where it was not, to read something metaphorically.
Similarly, Pius XII did not actually teach evolution, but he permitted it to be discussed ... and that was a tragic error.
Between these two tragic mistakes, the Modernists went to town and completely destroyed Sacred Scripture. These types of heretics cannot be given a single inch of leeway.
I agree with your comparison with Pope Pius XII and evolution, however the “invincible ignorance” comment is a bit of a stretch since Pope Pius XII was passive and Venerable Pius IX was actively teaching. Incidentally, all Venerable Pius IX was teaching was the fact that someone who is invincibly ignorant about anything is not culpable for it.
-
I agree with your comparison with Pope Pius XII and evolution, however the “invincible ignorance” comment is a bit of a stretch since Pope Pius XII was passive and Venerable Pius IX was actively teaching. Incidentally, all Venerable Pius IX was teaching was the fact that someone who is invincibly ignorant about anything is not culpable for it.
Well, the point about Pius IX was that he threw out a concept that got immediately exploited by the heretics. I understand what he was trying to teach. In fact, during his lifetime, when he found out how the heretics were spinning his teaching, he was shocked and appalled. Ever since that point, every single religious indifferentist has clung to that particular teaching. So, while his teaching was in no way false or erroneous, it was extremely inopportune to throw it out there given the prevailing climate.
-
Pius XII, Humani Generis:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
This here is one of the most tragic statements in the history of the Magisterium.
First of all, though he doesn't say it, there's a strong implication that the Teaching Authority of the Church should bow to the "present state of human sciences", almost putting theology and the sciences on a par, on the same level.
Secondly, the notion that the human body came from "LIVING" matter is contrary to Sacred Scripture AND the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, who all assert unequivocally that Adam was created from the earth or the dust of the earth. How "earth" or "dust of the earth" can be extrapolated into an "ape" without doing extreme violence to Sacred Scripture is absolutely inconceivable. Where you could perhaps apply Providentissimus Deus is to say that the dust of the earth refers simply to the various chemicals and organic compounds that are found in abundance in the earth. If you look at the chemical composition of the human body and that of earth or soil, there's a very close match (I'll dig it up at some point). But if you hold that when Scripture states that God created Adam from the earth, the "earth" was just an ape ... then all of Genesis becomes a non-historical allegory of some kind replete with errors.
But Pius XII is not teaching that this was the case. In fact, if you read on, he says that reasons both for and against must be considered, and the conclusions ultimately subjected to the Magisterium. So all he's doing is opening up some freedom of discussion on the matter. But that in and of itself was a horrible, horrible mistake. We have this statement to thanks for the millions of Catholics who now hold that Genesis was merely a fanciful story. And cassini points out the role that Providentissimus Deus played in this as well. Where Leo XIII gave them the key, Pius XII unlocked the door ... which the Modernists then flung wide open. It's similar to Roncalli talking about opening up the windows of the Vatican ... only to allow all the sewage into the Church.
-
Well, the point about Pius IX was that he threw out a concept that got immediately exploited by the heretics. I understand what he was trying to teach. In fact, during his lifetime, when he found out how the heretics were spinning his teaching, he was shocked and appalled. Ever since that point, every single religious indifferentist has clung to that particular teaching. So, while his teaching was in no way false or erroneous, it was extremely inopportune to throw it out there given the prevailing climate.
I suspect that this was true throughout Church history.
-
The history of the damage done by the 1820-35 concession to heliocentrist books, and therefore to a heliocentric reinterpretation, continued into Pope Pius X's reign.
In 1906, one year after Einstein admitted geocentrism was never falsified, Pope Pius X, on the recommendation of science teacher Cardinal Pietro Maffi, designated the same Fr G. Hagen S.J. as director of the Specola Vaticana. So, what was Fr Hagen and the Jesuits now up to at the Observatory? Such was his reputation on the occasion of his 80th birthday in 1927 that he was visited at the observatory by Pope Pius XI (1922-39) who presented him with a special gold medal in recognition of his service to astronomy. What work then by a Jesuit years after the M&M ‘failure’ was such that deserved a gold medal? How did this lauded astronomer restore the Church’s reputation in faith and science?
‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S.J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth’s Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen S.J., [1847-1930] director of the Vatican Observatory. It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the Earth’s axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault’s, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the Earth’s rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our Earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen’s own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable to the Galileo imbroglio,” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle “that the Pope’s own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the Earth’s rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the Earth’s motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
‘It looks like an amende honourable[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn2) to the Galileo imbroglio,’ [3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftn3) adds Fr. Rigge S.J., describing the shame with which churchmen viewed the Galileo case. In other words, here above we see the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory in Pope Pius X’s and Pope Pius XI’s time were now, in the name of the Church, hell-bent trying to convince all how Galileo’s heresy was right and the geocentrism of the Bible defended by all the Fathers and popes in 1616 and 1633 was wrong. They did this, we see, by regurgitating all the ‘proofs’ for a rotating Earth that were never proofs, and kept going even when cosmologists after the M&M test were admitting there was no such proof for their fixed sun/orbiting Earth. This then is how the Jesuits refuted ‘accusations against the Church as an enemy of scientific progress.’
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref1) The Fortnightly Review: Mission Press of the Society of the Divine Illinois, 1913.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref2) Amende Honorable: English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Last%20final%20edit%20TE.doc#_ftnref3) Imbroglio: An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding.
-
Would that the Jesuits had remained permanently suppressed.
Chardin was one of the biggest enemies of the faith ever, and then you had the Jesuits promoting neo-Pelagianism and religious indifferentism. Even Adam Weishaupt was Jesuit-trained.
-
The talk about geocentrism brought to mind a catechism class that I downloaded from SSPX Asia at least 10-12 years ago (relevant clip attached below). Fr. Scott gets upset that anyone would consider geocentrism true.
I think it is an example of why we need to examine the beliefs that we have picked up from the world, especially "proven science".
Couldn't agree more! With the amount of lies and disinformation that has been getting light since the internet came around, makes me basically question anything "science" claims to be true. And if some atheists scientist says one thing and Church tradition says another, guess who I'm siding with.
Another consideration is relevancy. Does it matter one way or another the way space works or the distant past of the earth? In my opinion pretty much no, anything that is not working towards the salvation of souls is ancillary at best and totally irrelevant at another end of the spectrum.
-
Would that the Jesuits had remained permanently suppressed.
Once again Ladislaus, as many faithful traditionalists secretly do, wishes that the Jansenists had won.
-
Once again Ladislaus, as many faithful traditionalists secretly do, wishes that the Jansenists had won.
Ridiculous. Jesuits should have been suppressed had they caused but 10% of the damage they actually did. You need to study up a bit in all that the Jesuits “accomplished” throughout their history. That first generation after St. Ignatius had some remarkable saints. But it was downhill almost immediately after that. Soon they asked to be dispensed from the Divine Office. St. Pius V really disliked them.
-
Once again Ladislaus, as many faithful traditionalists secretly do, wishes that the Jansenists had won.
The Jesuits were and are theological cyanide. It can't be any more obvious. If your religious order produces TV figure Democrat mouthpiece priests and basketball players more than it produces orthodox priests, it was never good in the first place.
-
The history of the damage done by the 1820-35 concession to heliocentrist books, and therefore to a heliocentric reinterpretation, continued into Pope Pius X's reign.
.
Oh no. Not GEOCENTRISM again and the "INFALLIBLE" decree of Pius V.
Haven't we had enough of this ?
-
Would that the Jesuits had remained permanently suppressed.
Chardin was one of the biggest enemies of the faith ever, and then you had the Jesuits promoting neo-Pelagianism and religious indifferentism. Even Adam Weishaupt was Jesuit-trained.
After his novitiate in the Society of Jesus, Bergoglio officially became a Jesuit on 12 March 1960, when he made the religious profession of the initial, perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience of a member of the order. Now he is Pope.
It seems the jesuits were/are the intellectuals of the priesthood.
Intelligence, the extent or ability of one’s reasoning, while a great gift from God comes with a high price tag, especially when engaging in matters challenging traditional Catholic metaphysics, theology, and even dogma. St Augustine once affirmed: ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ In 2015, an exorcist in Barcelona said of all the sins preferred by Satan, pride was the greatest. We all want to be clever, and the cleverer the better; fallen man revels in ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning’ as Galileo boasted. Such a talent produces an interior, personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible to those that have it. It can bring honour, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and fame to some who excel in any given field of knowledge. Francis Bacon understood this very well when he recognised that ‘knowledge is power.’ Yes, conforming and contributing to a consensus can be a path to success among one’s peers. But the temptations involved here are enormous, for intelligence can also be the source of pride. The great intellectual saints such as Augustine, Aquinas and Bellarmine all knew that intellectual pride is an area that Satan has not neglected, refused accolades and honours, preferring instead to embrace humility and exalt divine authority and teaching above mere human reasoning.
Ever see Pope Francis enjoy the adoration and other Vatican II popes get when they parade in their especially built vehicals in front of the flock whose faith they have destroyed?
-
Another consideration is relevancy. Does it matter one way or another the way space works or the distant past of the earth? In my opinion pretty much no, anything that is not working towards the salvation of souls is ancillary at best and totally irrelevant at another end of the spectrum.
Let me put it to you Durango another way: Does it matter what way God created the universe?
Does it matter what God revealed about His universe in the Bible?
Does it matter what Cardinal Bellarmine said in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini?
‘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. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. 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 prophets and apostles.’
Does it matter that a geocentric creation cannot be made evolve naturally whereas the heliocentric one can and became the first evolution theory that eventually led to millions losing faith in a divine Creator?
-
.
Oh no. Not GEOCENTRISM again and the "INFALLIBLE" decree of Pius V.
Haven't we had enough of this ?
No, but I think we've heard enough from you on this subject.
-
Let me put it to you Durango another way: Does it matter what way God created the universe?
Does it matter what God revealed about His universe in the Bible?
Does it matter what Cardinal Bellarmine said in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini?
‘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. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. 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 prophets and apostles.’
Does it matter that a geocentric creation cannot be made evolve naturally whereas the heliocentric one can and became the first evolution theory that eventually led to millions losing faith in a divine Creator?
I'll have to ponder your statement that a geocentric creation cannot be made to evolve naturally. Of course, God can do whatever He wants, but I guess from the perspective of the naturalist/rationalist scientists, they would certainly be at a loss to explain how a geocentric reality could have evolved by chance. Of course, they haven't really explained how the complexity of life could have evolved by chance either, but that doesn't stop them from asserting it anyway.
More important than the question itself (ex parte objecti) of whether the earth moves are the principles behind Scriptural interpretation. If the unanimous interpretations of the Fathers could be wrong on this point, then they could be wrong on other points. If certain things are just story or allegory vs. literal historical accounts, then anything could be read that way. Next step is that the entire Genesis account is just non-scientific, non-historical ... just a story made up to illustrate some unknown theological point.
-
I can see the argument that expressions like the "rising" and "setting" of the sun are simply descriptions based on perspective from earth. Even heliocentrists today still use those terms.
But the key to geocentrism lies in the fact that Genesis clearly explains that God created the earth BEFORE He created the stars. There's simply no talking around that. Either that is true, or the entire Genesis account is just a "nice story".
-
I've been wanting to add one comment to this thread since I first saw it:
What does it MATTER what position a single, private, lay CathInfo member holds on a given topic?
I really don't like threads which call out members by name. And I'll explain why:
Can't we discuss ideas, and not worry so much about individuals and personalities? Isn't focusing on this or that individual -- especially non-clerics, who really don't have much influence and don't matter in the scheme of things -- the exact opposite of what we should be doing ideally?
I'm the owner and sole moderator of this forum -- there might be a couple other forums "about as popular/large" in the English speaking world but there are none larger. Nevertheless, I'd be the first to say that my opinion doesn't mean jack squat. As a lay nobody, I restrict myself to regurgitating CATHOLIC DOCTRINE and when I occasionally spout my opinion, I make it clear that it's my opinion and that everyone is free to agree or disagree.
-
I can see the argument that expressions like the "rising" and "setting" of the sun are simply descriptions based on perspective from earth. Even heliocentrists today still use those terms.
But the key to geocentrism lies in the fact that Genesis clearly explains that God created the earth BEFORE He created the stars. There's simply no talking around that. Either that is true, or the entire Genesis account is just a "nice story".
Without getting into the helio vs geo debate, I would say that even though God created Earth first doesn't mean He didn't also decide to have it revolve around the sun after creating it. In other words, I don't think the order of creation necessarily proves one or the other.
-
I've been wanting to add one comment to this thread since I first saw it:
What does it MATTER what position a single, private, lay CathInfo member holds on a given topic?
I really don't like threads which call out members by name. And I'll explain why:
Can't we discuss ideas, and not worry so much about individuals and personalities? Isn't focusing on this or that individual -- especially non-clerics, who really don't have much influence and don't matter in the scheme of things -- the exact opposite of what we should be doing ideally?
I'm the owner and sole moderator of this forum -- there might be a couple other forums "about as popular/large" in the English speaking world but there are none larger. Nevertheless, I'd be the first to say that my opinion doesn't mean jack squat. As a lay nobody, I restrict myself to regurgitating CATHOLIC DOCTRINE and when I occasionally spout my opinion, I make it clear that it's my opinion and that everyone is free to agree or disagree.
To be honest with you Matthew, I too couldn't believe it when I saw a thread with my CIF name on it. I feared some might take advantage and give me a hard time. As it turned out no one did and some found the subject matter interesting as it developed. I hold no grudge with Sean, but I am glad you pointed out that no members name should be the subject of a thread title.
-
Another consideration is relevancy. Does it matter one way or another the way space works or the distant past of the earth? In my opinion pretty much no, anything that is not working towards the salvation of souls is ancillary at best and totally irrelevant at another end of the spectrum.
One final aspect of the question you asked Durango, is the part it plays in the very first dogma found in Ludwig OTT's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
‘God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.’ (De fide.)
‘For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen – His everlasting power also and divinity - being understood through the things that are made. And so they are without excuse, seeing that, although they knew God they did not glorify Him as God or give him thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds have been darkened.’---St Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
Saint Thomas Aquinas explained and developed this dogma. He advised any search for God should begin with the things we can realise, the things that can be perceived by the senses, things all around us as we live out our lives. These are the first things we can know, because they exist; things like the universe, the Earth, sun, moon, stars, sky, clouds, oceans, mountains, landscapes, trees, flowers, fruits, animals, birds, fish, insects, minerals and fuels, but especially fellow human beings. To most, these are things taken for granted today, but for St Thomas they generated wonder. The first question he asked was ‘Where do all these different things get their existence from, what causes them all to be?’ Thus begins a journey in some cases from cause to cause until we reach a point where we can go back no further. It is then we have to acknowledge a Cause that did not receive its existence from outside itself otherwise all that is would never have come into being to be comprehensible to our minds and senses. St Thomas examined in detail what kind of being this original or supreme cause would have to be. The answer, of course, is an omnipotent Creator.
Now Revelation and the senses show us God created the Universe to turn around our Earth at the centre. This showed mankind they are special because of it.
As time went by, this geocentric doctrine was developed further to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of man and the infinite theology of God, a synthesis of thought found in the reasoning refined and articulated in a Christian way over the centuries by all the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, especially Dionysius the Areopagite (1st century AD), St Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) - who held that the altar in the Jєωιѕн tabernacle was ‘a symbol of the Earth placed in the middle of the universe,’ - Peter Lombard (12th century), and then, ‘with great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew White, ‘St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the “Angelic Doctor,” brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church.’ In this way Saint Thomas brought about a universal change in emphasis. Up to his time philosophy had been the centre of knowledge since the great Greek thinkers, but with the application of Christian revelation and infused wisdom, Christian theology and metaphysics found its place in the intellectual world, with all the other humanities and disciplines, including ethics, logic, politics, and economics subservient to it. Thomism then, became the vehicle for a system of learning and education. Hence with the scholastics, the primacy of a teleological explanation for the existence of man, his nature, place, purpose and destiny was established more fully.
Dante Alighieri, famous for his The Divine Comedy, a poem divided into a journey of three parts of a geocentric world, Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory) and Paradiso (Heaven), reflects medieval Catholicism when the Catholic faith had reached it peak of blessed understanding.. Pope Benedict XV in his 1921 In Praeclara Summorum did praise Dante’s medieval geocentric Catholicism but questioned the integrity of its geocentrism if ‘the progress of science’ had shown us Dante’s old world order had been proven false by science.
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote his De Ascensione Mentis in Deum, The Mind’s Ascent to God (by the Ladder of Created Things). Published in 1614, Bellarmine devotes seven of his fifteen steps to ‘The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.’
-
Would that the Jesuits had remained permanently suppressed.
Chardin was one of the biggest enemies of the faith ever, and then you had the Jesuits promoting neo-Pelagianism and religious indifferentism. Even Adam Weishaupt was Jesuit-trained.
What an absurd idea. Any competent Church historian knows the FMason Pombal( as well as Jansenits) was behind the suppression of Jesuits-- of which the Pope regretted mucho fast. Pope Pius VI rescinded Dominicus upon his election.
Weishaupt-- a marrano layman was discovered and expelled. As for Chardin-- there have been bad apples in the Church before. It doesn't follow to trash the entire order.
It should be noted that Ladislaus has been reading way to much Mrs Martinez & is also among the libeler's of( as well as by implication Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Cards Del Val, De Lai etc) Card Rampolla. :cowboy:
-
Ridiculous. Jesuits should have been suppressed had they caused but 10% of the damage they actually did. You need to study up a bit in all that the Jesuits “accomplished” throughout their history. That first generation after St. Ignatius had some remarkable saints. But it was downhill almost immediately after that. Soon they asked to be dispensed from the Divine Office. St. Pius V really disliked them.
I am aware of only one thing the Jesuits asked( and received) a dispensation from-- the choral obligation so as to concentrate more time as missionaries. Pls give source for the idea that Jesuits asked for a dispensation from The Divine Office-- did they receive it? :popcorn:
-
The Forum is waiting for reply so far :sleep:
-
:sleep: :confused: