Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Galileo And The Indefectible Church  (Read 1355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Miser Peccator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
  • Reputation: +2041/-458
  • Gender: Female
Galileo And The Indefectible Church
« on: April 27, 2023, 06:29:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cassini has shared a great deal of research on this matter and it has puzzled me.  How could the Church declare Heliocentrism is heresy and then reverse itself while remaining indefectible?

    I'm still not sure of the answer and would like to hear what others here say, but this is an explanation that I found at this blog post:


    https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html

    Does this solve the problem of indefectibility or not?



    Ultimately, there were issued two condemnations of Galileo; one in 1616, and more seriously in 1633. The condemnation of 1633 is the one that needs to be understood. It reads:

    The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

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

    This decision clearly labels heliocentrism as heretical, and that is because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. What must be discerned is (1) whether the decision infallible and (2) even if not infallible, must we not believe it on Magisterial authority? If not, how is that any different from Feeneyites who claim we only need to believe ex cathedra teachings?


    The Galileo Decision Does Not Meet The Requirements Of An Infallible Decree
    The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly defines the conditions necessary and sufficient for an infallible decree.
    We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by his supreme and apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. (See Pastor Aeternus).

    Therefore, the five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:

    1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)

    2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)

    3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)

    4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)

    5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).

    Applying it to the decree of 1633, it does not constitute a doctrinal definition (#4) since it was personally addressed to Galileo alone and since its direct object was the condemnation and absolution of a single individual – a factor which is also incompatible with conditions #2 and #5, namely that the pope should be acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, as well as ordering his doctrine to be held by the whole Church.





    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2604
    • Reputation: +1332/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #1 on: April 27, 2023, 06:39:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Cassini has shared a great deal of research on this matter and it has puzzled me.  How could the Church declare Heliocentrism is heresy and then reverse itself while remaining indefectible?

    I'm still not sure of the answer and would like to hear what others here say, but this is an explanation that I found at this blog post:


    https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html

    Does this solve the problem of indefectibility or not?



    Ultimately, there were issued two condemnations of Galileo; one in 1616, and more seriously in 1633. The condemnation of 1633 is the one that needs to be understood. It reads:

    The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

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

    This decision clearly labels heliocentrism as heretical, and that is because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. What must be discerned is (1) whether the decision infallible and (2) even if not infallible, must we not believe it on Magisterial authority? If not, how is that any different from Feeneyites who claim we only need to believe ex cathedra teachings?


    The Galileo Decision Does Not Meet The Requirements Of An Infallible Decree
    The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly defines the conditions necessary and sufficient for an infallible decree.
    We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by his supreme and apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. (See Pastor Aeternus).

    Therefore, the five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:

    1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)

    2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)

    3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)

    4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)

    5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).

    Applying it to the decree of 1633, it does not constitute a doctrinal definition (#4) since it was personally addressed to Galileo alone and since its direct object was the condemnation and absolution of a single individual – a factor which is also incompatible with conditions #2 and #5, namely that the pope should be acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, as well as ordering his doctrine to be held by the whole Church.

    The Holy office isn't infallible. Unironically the dimonds made a strong video on this to rebuke the argument against Fr Feeney.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7686
    • Reputation: +646/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #2 on: April 27, 2023, 08:14:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My article-- The Real Galileo can be read at firstjesuits.wordpress.com :popcorn:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2041/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #3 on: April 27, 2023, 08:22:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My article-- The Real Galileo can be read at firstjesuits.wordpress.com :popcorn:
    Thanks, Roscoe!
    It looks fascinating, but I'm afraid I can't read very well.

    Can you provide a summary on how it explains the Indefectibility of the Church in light of the reversal?
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7686
    • Reputation: +646/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #4 on: April 27, 2023, 10:36:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No-- I am a historian: not a theologian, philosopher or scientist. :confused:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7686
    • Reputation: +646/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #5 on: April 28, 2023, 10:17:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And BTW-- this does Not mean that I accept your OP that there even has been a "reversal"... :confused:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2041/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #6 on: April 29, 2023, 12:51:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see Cassini here.  Maybe he can provide more info on the reversal and weigh in on the info in the OP? :)
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2333
    • Reputation: +881/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #7 on: April 29, 2023, 02:13:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not weighing in on the question at the moment, but want to make the following observation: if the condemnations of Galileo and its "decision" on what is heretical can be erroneous, then so can the Holy Office Letter condemning the position of the SBC on EENS.

    The HOL is, unquestionably, of lesser authority than the Holy Office pronouncements against Galileo.

    Never thought about the HOL that way before (i.e., in light of the Galileo condemnations by the Holy Office).
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3994
    • Reputation: +3229/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #8 on: April 30, 2023, 03:30:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see Cassini here.  Maybe he can provide more info on the reversal and weigh in on the info in the OP? :)

    There is not a subject more discussed in the history of the last 200 years than the Galileo affair. Heliocentrism is but one of many heresies arising from Pythagoreanism and condemned by popes and Fathers in the first 4 centuries of Christendom. In 1616 and 1633 Two popes of the Catholic Church, to avoid many of these heresies arising again in the Galileo case after Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600, decided to confirm the Church's interpretation of Divine Revelation on this matter. Pope Paul V defined and declared heliocentrism contradicts the revelation by God in His Bible. Thereafter, proofs for heliocentrism came one after the other until the pressure on the Church to do a U-turn on its 1616+ decrees was too much when Pope Benedict XIV allowed the decree forbidding all references to heliocentrism be removed from the Index. Five heliocentric books were however, left on the Index.
    In 1820, more pressure was put on Pope Pius VII to remove the five books. This he did and thus began the problem for Catholics. Among the many questions that needed an answer the question of infallibility was the most serious as it had the potential to show the Church, popes, are not protected by God when defining matters of faith and morals.

    Now any Catholic-thinking Catholic, like a Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825) Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome, 1820. will conclude that when two popes define and declare a wrongful interpretation of Scripture is formal heresy, with one of their reasons in that the Council of Trent defined that when ALL the Fathers held to a geocentric reading of Scripture  that is irreformable. (the term Infallible was not in use in those days, that happened at Vatican I in 1869).     
    Then there are the other Catholics, those who believe the 1616 decree was proven wrong by science like Roscoe and the Dimond Brothers, and those who felt they had to defend the 1741-1835 U-turn by popes Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI. like David Palm and others.

    First of all, the best case written by another for an infallible 1616 decree was written by a priest who believed heliocentrism was proven and geocentrism was falsified. Google this and you will get a PDF of the book.

     https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Roberts,%20William%20W_/The%20Pontifical%20decrees%20against%20the%20doctrine%20of%20the%20earth's%20movement%20and%20the%20Ultramontane%20defence%20on%20%20(3901)/The%20Pontifical%20decrees%20against%20the%20doctrine%20of%20the%20earth's%20movement%20and%20the%20Ultramontane%20defence%20on%20%20-%20Roberts,%20William%20W_.pdf  

    It is getting late now so I will leave my Catholic-thinking on the question of  Galileo And The Indefectible Church until tomorrow.      

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3994
    • Reputation: +3229/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Galileo And The Indefectible Church
    « Reply #9 on: May 01, 2023, 09:01:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The first sign of divine protection (infallibility that cannot be reformed) was that all the Fathers held to a moving sun of Scripture.

    The Council of Trent rules: ‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’--- (Denzinger – 783/786)

    In its catechism Trent states: ‘I Believe in God, Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth. He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power – attributes peculiar to the Divinity – created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made… The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of His fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Psa. 103:5: You fixed the Earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them….

    Now Trent was a dogmatic Council, and it ruled biblical geocentrism was a divine revelation given in Scripture. In other words the credibility of TRENT itself is inferred by those who state the 1616 decree defending the above teaching was not infallible.

    Next confirmation of the infallibility of the 1616 decree was in 1633 when Pope Urban VIII had his Holy Office confirm its infallibility:
    The sentence continued: “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.'

    The next confirmation of its binding on all Catholics came in 1820:
    Fr Olivieri writes: ‘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 ...., which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213

    So, Trent, Pope Urban VIII and Pope Pius VII's Holy Office all confirm the 1616 decree was unrevisable.

    THEN CAME THE SO-CALLED PROOFS FOR HELIOCENTRISM, and the removing of all heliocentric books off the Index. Can you even imagine the dilemma this had within the Catholic Church, a dilemma milked by the anti-Catholic world emerging at the time, a conflict that is one of the most written about in the history of both Church and State. The enemies of the Church ridiculed it whereas members of the Church had to try to dismiss the 1616 and 1633 decrees as ‘deciding next to nothing’ as Henry Newman phrased it?

    So, where is 'the indefectible Church' as this subject asks? First, you must know that heliocentrism was never proven false. From Einstein's time this non-falsification became public. As the divine protection of the anti-heliocentric decrees of 1616 and 1633 were denied because of the belief that geocentrism was proven false, its infallibility can be restored.

    But what about the Church since 1820? Well all they did was remove heliocentric books from the Index. Pope Paul VI closed down the Index altogether but all the heresies in them remained condemned heresies. So too the heliocentric heresy in 1820. But here now is the proof of the Church's Indefectibility. Having searched throughout history I could not find one pope who dared to reform the 1616 decree. There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Galileoism  can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can:

    (A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way.

    We see then, no abrogation - a modified derogation, yes - had yet been enacted. As far as the ‘theological problem’ was concerned, the 1616 papal judgment of formal heresy still remained in force in 1820.

    Which brings us down to the last problem, were those popes and flock who accepted heliocentrism heretics? Well, there is a thing called material heresy. If one accepted heliocentrism convinced it was a proven scientific fact that would be material heresy. All from 1820 thought this was true so no punishable heresy exists.

    Which leads to a very important question; does the material heresy of those who are told geocentrism was never proven and that the Church has long defined it as a heresy, actually become guilty of conscious heresy?