I haven't finished reading the Daly article. I'm on page 26 and it is annoyingly overly-repetitive.
Daly is welcome to his opinion. What he was not aware of is that in 1820 the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was 'irreversible.'
Source for this please.?
How refreshing it is to see such worthy debate, and I am delighted to answer as best I can. I do not know how to box quotes seperately so I will just answer in order as above, but ONE answer PER POST.
The infallibility of the 1616 decree.
in his book retrying Galileo 2007, M.A. Finocchiaro records the exchange between the the Copernicans in the 1820 Holy Office headed by the Commissary General of the Inquisition Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri and the few remaining ‘traditionalists’ led by the Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi. Finocchiaro writes (p.193) 'Many docuмents pertaining to the Settele affair have survived, and almost all of them have been recently published.'
Here is all Daly gave us of the affair:
5. Subsequently to all the decrees which condemned heliocentrism, the Church came to authorise belief in the doctrine which it had previously condemned. This it did especially under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757 when heliocentric writings were deleted from the Index of Forbidden Books, in 1820 when Pope Pius VII granted the appeal of Canon Settele against thedecision of Monsignor Anfossi, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, refusing an imprimatur to his work Elements d’Astronomie, and in 1822 when the same Pope approved a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition permitting books teaching that the earthmoves be published even at Rome itself.
It is, of course, quite impossible that the Church should authorise belief in an infallibly condemned heresy, awarding he Roman Imprimatur to a book teaching it and authorising other such books to be published at Rome itself with ecclesiastical approval.
'It is of course impossible" Daly writes, echoing a thousand other 'good Catholics' throughout the years. How many other impossibles however, does Daly pass over, like 'it is impossible for a pope to define and declare as a matter of faith, a heresy, and bind the Catholic world to this under pain of self excommunication something that was not a heresy? Which 'impossibility' do you think is worse, doing it in the first place, or trying to undo it in the second place?
had Daly read the details of this 'authorisation of belief in the doctrine which it had previously condemned' and how it was done he would have added another half dozen 'impossibilities' to his synthesis. He does not tell you the grounds upon which they got rid of their ban. Had he known he might have become a Protestant rather than appealing to get us all believe this is 'impossible' or that is 'impossible' in the Church. I tell you what is impossible, the only impossibility we can believe if we are to remain Catholic? It is impossible for an infallible, official decree to be overturned by another official decree. Thankfully for catholicism is that granting an imprimatur is not exactly an abrogation, merely a derogation.
Here is a summary of what Finocchiaro said from The Earthmovers:
The Status of the 1616 Decree
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all. Throughout his summary he never ceases to taunt Anfossi and his arguments (that nowadays cannot be faulted) in any way he can. For example: ‘This proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity.’ ‘This is the great misconception which the Most Rev. Father has in his head.’ ‘The fact is that you say nothing with any perspicacity or with distinct clarity.’ ‘You make so much noise against such a maxim.’ ‘The Rev Father must be joking when…’ ‘I find [the Rev. Fr.’s] internal incoherence stupefying.’ ‘He also dares to say…’ ‘Why, Most Rev Father, instead of talking off the top of your head… ’Finally I am ashamed for him of what he says…’ ‘Before stopping this modest writing of mine…’ ‘I believe I have demonstrated that nothing that has been produced by the Most Rev. Father has any validity; on the contrary, he has produced many things that are wrong.’ ‘He has been seduced by unknown persons who are incompetent.’
But now it is time to tie down some loose ends. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1640 decrees, he then tries to save his Church and if this results in his contradicting himself, well who would notice that in such a lengthy synopsis.
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’
Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite in fact, he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and could not be reversed. Finocchiaro comments:
‘This reply is interesting. Insofar as it spoke of unrevisability rather than infallibility, it was dealing with a more manageable concept. Moreover, it seems to presuppose that there was a papal decree against the earth’s motion, and so Olivieri’s criterion for a papal decree seems less stringent than those prevailing today. He seems to regard a papal decree as one which the pope made while discharging his official functions, such as being president of the Congregation of the Holy Office; examples of such decrees would be Paul V’s decision that [a fixed sun was formally heretical] and that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture (endorsed at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February and 3 March 1616) and Pope Urban VIII’s decision that Galileo be condemned (reached at the Inquisition meeting of 16 June 1633). Although Olivieri’s criterion was probably historically correct, it is important to point out that the definition of a papal decree ex cathedra was undergoing some evolution…’
Finocchiaro uses the wrong word here, for the law of God does not ‘evolve,’ that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another. The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal decrees. What the Fathers of Vatican I did was clarify the conditions of a pope’s extraordinary infallibility but it also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility that extends for example to defined disclosures of revelation in the Scriptures.
So here in 1820 the Holy Office once again agrees the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible, just as it did in 1633. Now it seems to us that a papal decree that is irreversible must by inference be infallible in the least meaning of the word. In justice it must be so, for the Church could not claim divine assistance if an ‘immutable’ papal decree defining and declaring a truth revealed in Scripture and its contrary formal heresy, and charge Galileo with that same heresy, could later be considered erroneous and false, let alone proven to be so. This concept for Catholicism is not Catholicism.