Author Topic: We are all Heretics! (Read 1789 times)

cassini · « **on:** September 03, 2014, 05:51:19 AM »

Did nobody spot it?

Well on THE EARTHMOVERS story it recalls the exchange between Fr Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri (1769-1845), a Dominican friar, Commissary General of the Inquisition (1820) and The Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825), a Dominican friar, censor of the press in Rome 1820.

Anfossi was defending the 1616 decree defining and declaring Copernicanism formal heresy. Olivieri was trying to convince the Holy Office and Pope Pius VII that the heliocentrism of Galileo was not the heliocentrism of 1820 and therefore NO LONGER heresy. Anfossi said it was exactly the same, a fixed sun around which the earth supposedly moved.

Olivieri then said Pope Benedict XIV in 1758 dropped the ban on Copernican books leaving only 5 named books on the Index (because they supported the old heretical 1616 Copernicanism).
Olivieri: ’There is a reason for leaving these books, for they belong to the age in which the earth’s motion had not been freed … of devastating mobility.’

Olivieri then accused Anfossi of heresy like so:
Olivieri: ‘Why did you not notice that by talking of “good reasons known to them” you make it sound as if the [1741] Sacred Congregation and the pope were guilty of dishonestly? For to begin with you claim that the [1616] condemnation was a solemn judgement; that it originated from the Pope himself and the Holy See; that it was an unrevisable judgement; that it declared a doctrine “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith”; and that it targeted the doctrine of the earth’s motion as it is taught even today. Then you do not realise you are committed to the inexorable self-refuting argument that after 1634 popes have been deceptive because they have no longer spoken against this doctrine despite the fact that it was constantly acquiring more and more embellishments from supporters and was becoming universally held. Finally… you came along and tell us that “for reasons known to them” they have neglected to acknowledge the truth of faith. But Most Rev. Father, this smells a little of the doctrine that some truths are being obscured in the Church, especially on the part of the Holy Apostolic See, and this doctrine is indeed heretical and was condemned as such in the bull Auctorem Fidei, in the first proposition if I am not mistaken.’

And what is the first proposition condemned in Pope Pius VI’s bull, Auctorem fidei, of August 28, 1794?

‘1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” --- Heretical.

Olivieri interpreted this bull Auctorem fidei of Pius VI's as saying if one accuses the Holy See, Rome, the Pope and his cardinals of obscuring Catholic truth, then ONE IS A HERETIC.

Let is now fast forward to TODAY, post VATICAN II, and the likes of Catholic Info Forum, wherein we KNOW the Holy See, Rome, the popes and cardinals have obscured the truths of faith EVERY DAY for the last50+ years.
Moreover, some of us also KNOW the Holy See, Rome, the popes and cardinals since 1741 have on the basis of the above farce of Olivieri's (two heliocentrisms, one heresy, the other orthodox) obscured the truths of faith in the Catholic Church.

This means we are all heretics according to Olivieri's interpretation of Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem fidei, which I presume is accurate, he being Commissary General of the Inquisition.

Is this any was to run the Church?

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2014, 07:10:56 AM »

This is what the Holy Office condemned in the trial of Galileo:

Quote

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

Galileo was wrong. The Sun does, in fact, move:

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2014, 07:30:19 AM »

With respect to the second theological censure,

Quote

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

For the proposition to be condemned as being "at least erroneous in faith," both sub-propositions must be asserted:

1. the earth is not the center of the world.

2. nor immovable.

Either sub-proposition, by itself, is not necessarily "erroneous in faith," but only both together.

We can defend the first sub-proposition:

Quote

There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Therefore, the Earth, per modern cosmology, can be asserted as being at the center of the Universe.

As for the second proposition, Nicole Oresme, a 14th-century French Catholic bishop, openly taught it:

Quote

In his Livre du ciel et du monde Oresme discussed a range of evidence for and against the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis.[6] From astronomical considerations, he maintained that if the Earth were moving and not the celestial spheres, all the movements that we see in the heavens that are computed by the astronomers would appear exactly the same as if the spheres were rotating around the Earth. He rejected the physical argument that if the Earth were moving the air would be left behind causing a great wind from east to west. In his view the Earth, Water, and Air would all share the same motion.[7] As to the scriptural passage that speaks of the motion of the sun, he concludes that "this passage conforms to the customary usage of popular speech" and is not to be taken literally.[8] He also noted that it would be more economical for the small Earth to rotate on its axis than the immense sphere of the stars.[9] Nonetheless, he concluded that none of these arguments were conclusive and "everyone maintains, and I think myself, that the heavens do move and not the Earth."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Oresme

Therefore, the second sub-proposition is not ipso facto "erroneous in faith."

claudel · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2014, 08:20:39 AM »

Quote from: cassini

Anfossi was defending the 1616 decree defining and declaring Copernicanism formal heresy.

There never was any such decree. Punkt. An assertion that there was such a decree is either an outright lie or an error so gross as to mark the one doing the asserting as utterly ignorant of Church teaching and history and as openly contemptuous of the unquestionably legitimate popes, from Urban VIII on, who never seconded or openly taught this false assertion.

McFiggly · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2014, 01:25:21 PM »

Quote from: Auctorem Fidei

‘1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” --- Heretical.

The problem is that the fixity of the Earth is not one of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teaching of Jesus Christ. A demonstration of this is that a St. Therese of Lisieux would have been no less of a saint if she believed in the false Copernicanism (though I do not know what she believed about this issue), whereas she could not have been a saint if she had accepted those Modernist errors which pertain to the basis of faith and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. The proof of this is in the declaration itself: if the fixity of the earth were a truth of such importance, then it would be impossible for it to have been generally obscured; but this truth has been generally obscured, and therefore it cannot be such a truth.

Olivieri is accusing Anfossi of heresy, or, to be more accurate he is charging Anfossi with being inconsistent; as Anfossi is asserting that an important truth of the Faith has been generally obscured and that those that have obscured it have fallen into heresy, but the declaration of Auctorem Fidei states that such an assertion is itself heretical. The response to Olivieri is either to say that the Earth's fixity is not an important truth pertaining to religion, and a basis of the faith and of the moral teaching of Jesus Christ, and therefore it is not heretical to say that this truth has been generally obscured; or that it is such an important truth but that it has not been "generally obscured", it has only be particularly obscured (but we can see retrospectively that this truth has been obscured enough to say that it is a general obscuring that has occurred).

I think that Copernicanism is a heresy, but the Church has not taught this heresy; correct me if I'm mistaken but I think that even up to the time of Pope Pius XII the popes were still speaking of Copernicanism as a mere hypothesis and not as a truth.

Are you saying, cassini, that the popes and cardinals were heretics for not condemning Copernicanism and not excommunicating those that preached the error/heresy pertinaciously?

McFiggly · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2014, 01:32:24 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

It seems like only the proposition that the sun is at the center of the world (the Universe) is and is immovable is formally heretical. Well, the modern astronomers do not believe that the sun is immovable and at the center of the earth. They do believe that the earth is not the center of the world and not immovable, but that has not been defined as formal heresy, unless "erroneous in faith" amounts to formal heresy. Is an error in faith a heresy?

The Church does seem to teach that to say that the Earth is not at the center of the Universes and is not immovable is absurd and false, so we know that the Earth is at the center of the Universe and/or immovable; however, it does not seem to me that such a position, though false, is formally heretical, although I am not sure exactly what "erroneous in faith" means.

McFiggly · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2014, 02:02:36 PM »

An argument you can make is that the fixity of the Earth must be an important truth of the faith because once it stopped being believed in the faith of many was weakened; but this would only really prove that there are people with weak faith who could not remain faithful as soon as it seemed like the world had proven the Church wrong.

The Church was still producing saints and faithful Catholics after the ban on Copernican books was lifted, so it is not comparable with the Vatican II crisis which has seemed to halt the production of saints and faithful Catholics.

If you say that the lifting of the ban on Copernican books eventually lead to the Vatican II crisis because the logical conclusion of the Church trying to reconcile the Faith with modern false science is Vatican II, and that impossible reconciliation began with the the lifting of the ban on Copernican books, I would object; because I do not think that the lifting of the ban on Copernican books was the "efficient cause" of Vatican II; the efficient cause of Vatican II must have been the embracing of Modernist errors by the clergy, and though the lifting of the ban on Copernican books may have allowed the Modernist errors to develop more quickly, it did not cause the Modernist errors themselves.

I do think that the Modernist errors begin with Galileo saying (and other bad thinkers spreading false philosophy, but perhaps Galileo was one of the more influential) that reason has proven that earth moves, and that seeing as the Bible say that the Earth does not move, the Bible is not to be taken literally; that is perhaps the germ, or one of the germs, for the Modernist errors which take this "the Bible is to be interpreted not literally" to a vicious extreme and produce many heretical interpretations of Scripture and the Faith generally. However, the Church was still fiercely combating this gross error even when it had lifted the ban on Copernican books. In other words, though it ceased to ban Copernican books, it did not cease to ban books preaching Modernist heresies that were associated with Copernicanism and Galileo.

Quote

Pope Pius XII (1943): in his 1943-SEP-30 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (On the Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies ), he compared the inerrancy of the Bible to the sinlessness of Jesus:
"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."

He also condemned the concept of limited inerrancy. He wrote:

"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' ... justly and rightly condemned these errors."

claudel · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2014, 02:34:30 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: cassini
Anfossi was defending the 1616 decree defining and declaring Copernicanism formal heresy.

There never was any such decree. Punkt. An assertion that there was such a decree is either an outright lie or an error so gross as to mark the one doing the asserting as utterly ignorant of Church teaching and history and as openly contemptuous of the unquestionably legitimate popes, from Urban VIII on, who never seconded or openly taught this false assertion.

Note, too, that the 1616 decree, the one that did not define and declare Copernicanism heretical in any formal and definitive way*—rather, it put De revolutionibus temporarily on the Index awaiting "correction"; only Father Foscarini's book, On the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth's Motion and Sun's Rest, was outright suppressed, mostly because it added theological arguments to experimental observations—had nothing whatsoever to do with the writings of Galileo. So at least said Paul V, when he saw Galileo in formal private audience the following month. So too said Bellarmine, in a famous letter of the month thereafter, meant for Galileo's use as a certification of his innocence in the eyes of the Holy Office and his freedom from the taint of any ecclesiastical charges whatsoever.

The tentativeness of any doctrinal effect and intent, as opposed to practical and disciplinary effect and intent, behind the careful wording of the 1616 decree may be seen in the care taken in its wording. The reigning pope, Paul V, and his doctrinal caretakers did just that—i.e., they took care—lest they paint the Church into a disastrous corner by creating the scandal that would inevitably follow upon a pointless and heedless attempt to suppress investigation into matters (viz., astronomy and cosmology) that the Vatican's own Jesuit scientists were busily investigating on a full-time basis. Would that CI's resident "experts" exhibited half so much circuмspection!
____________

*Note as well that the terminology the decree used—"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place. … The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action …"—corresponds in no way with the actual language used by either Copernicus or Galileo. Put otherwise, a condemnation of me for something I said that I did not in fact say is ipso facto null and void. Unlike an American court, God will not damn a man for another man's clumsy clerical error or outright falsification.

McFiggly · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2014, 02:46:22 PM »

Quote from: claudel

only Father Foscarini's book, On the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth's Motion and Sun's Rest, was outright suppressed, mostly because it added theological arguments to experimental observations—had nothing whatsoever to do with the writings of Galileo.

I believe that Galileo also added theological arguments to his experimental observations.

Quote

The tentativeness of any doctrinal effect and intent, as opposed to practical and disciplinary effect and intent, behind the careful wording of the 1616 decree may be seen in the care taken in its wording. The reigning pope, Paul V, and his doctrinal caretakers did just that—i.e., they took care—lest they paint the Church into a disastrous corner by creating the scandal that would inevitably follow upon a pointless and heedless attempt to suppress investigation into matters (viz., astronomy and cosmology) that the Vatican's own Jesuit scientists were busily investigating on a full-time basis. Would that CI's resident "experts" exhibited half so much circuмspection!

Well according to an above quote from the decree the words "formal heresy" were used, which would seem to me to be a doctrinal intent as opposed to being merely a disciplinary one.

Quote

*Note as well that the terminology the decree used—"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place. … The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action …"—corresponds in no way with the actual language used by either Copernicus or Galileo.

If this language did in no way correspond to the language used by Galileo then why was he brought in and condemned for using precisely this kind of language?

McFiggly · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2014, 02:59:36 PM »

You cannot say that the Earth is movable without bringing theology into the picture, because, (1) a literal interpretation of Scripture would seem to suggest that the Earth is immovable, and, (2) the Fathers are in consensus about the immovability of the Earth (from what I've heard, haven't checked this); and seeing as the Scriptures and the Fathers are the foundations of the Faith and theology, to say that the Earth is movable is to question Catholic theology. The evidence of this is that when the world began to accept that the Earth was moving the Catholic Church and the Scriptures also came to be discredited for spreading error. "If the Church and the Scriptures can be wrong about this, then they can be wrong about a host of other things" is what I have heard was the attitude at the time. In order to save the Church from this damning conclusion Galileo resorted to saying that Scripture often spoke in the "language of appearances", to make it more understandable to common folk. The problem with this is that the Modernists then began to apply this hermeneutic of "appearance" to not just the parts of Scriptures that talk about the sun rising and setting, but to everything pertaining to the Faith.

claudel · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2014, 03:33:35 PM »

McFiggly, the ignorance and presumption in your reply to me compound the sin of willfully distorting (by deliberate omission) the words of the two popes you cite in defense of your 100 percent uninformed and misleading ramblings.

Have an equally distorted day.

cassini · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2014, 04:25:51 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Auctorem Fidei

‘1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” --- Heretical.

The problem is that the fixity of the Earth is not one of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teaching of Jesus Christ. A demonstration of this is that a St. Therese of Lisieux would have been no less of a saint if she believed in the false Copernicanism (though I do not know what she believed about this issue), whereas she could not have been a saint if she had accepted those Modernist errors which pertain to the basis of faith and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. The proof of this is in the declaration itself: if the fixity of the earth were a truth of such importance, then it would be impossible for it to have been generally obscured; but this truth has been generally obscured, and therefore it cannot be such a truth.

Olivieri is accusing Anfossi of heresy, or, to be more accurate he is charging Anfossi with being inconsistent; as Anfossi is asserting that an important truth of the Faith has been generally obscured and that those that have obscured it have fallen into heresy, but the declaration of Auctorem Fidei states that such an assertion is itself heretical. The response to Olivieri is either to say that the Earth's fixity is not an important truth pertaining to religion, and a basis of the faith and of the moral teaching of Jesus Christ, and therefore it is not heretical to say that this truth has been generally obscured; or that it is such an important truth but that it has not been "generally obscured", it has only be particularly obscured (but we can see retrospectively that this truth has been obscured enough to say that it is a general obscuring that has occurred).

I think that Copernicanism is a heresy, but the Church has not taught this heresy; correct me if I'm mistaken but I think that even up to the time of Pope Pius XII the popes were still speaking of Copernicanism as a mere hypothesis and not as a truth.

Are you saying, cassini, that the popes and cardinals were heretics for not condemning Copernicanism and not excommunicating those that preached the error/heresy pertinaciously?

Thanks McFiggly, you have addressed the reason I posted this thread. Did God ever intend to have His Church so complicated that one would have to be an St Augustine or a St Thomas to understand it all. My faith tells me one cannot be a heretic to believe a truth, even if that truth happens to recognise that from popes down, they did obscure what a previous Council and popes had defined as formal heresy.

You say the Pythagorean/Copernican heresy was not one of the 'more important truths pertaining to religion.' I would question Pope Pius VI's words here: are there more important and less important truths pertaining to religion?

The Copernican heresy was designed by Satan to destroy one of the fundamental rocks of Catholicism, Faith and reason. It was designed to get Catholics to begin a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis in particular. Copernicanism was designed to destroy the dogma of Trent, that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted.

For me then, the 1616 decree was one of the more important decrees in the history of the Church. It was the first defence against Modernism. Once popes destroyed this defence the gates of modernism were opened up and we are now where we are.

You ask me: 'Are you saying that the popes and cardinals were heretics for not condemning Copernicanism and not excommunicating those that preached the error/heresy pertinaciously?

Of all the heresies ever defined and declared by way of decree, probably none was more known or famous in history than Galileo's heresy. Trouble is, from the very beginning there were those Catholics who really believed that heliocentrism was a scientific fact. In other words their faith in reason was greater than their faith in Catholic tradition. Moreover, because of the subject matter of the Scriptural interpretation that they denied was the created order of the creation, they believed it wasn't a REAL HERESY, more a scientific heresy, that they could deny it and ignore it. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine had already said to deny this interpretation was no different than denying the Virgin Birth, as they are BOTH revealed by the word of God. Now does that make them heretics? Does believing in what their predecessor defined as heresy, not make them heretics? I do not define and declare what is heresy, popes do. If I believe what a pope defined as heresy, can I say that one who freely adheres to that heresy is not a heretic? Wouldn't that make me a heretic?

So, what I do say is that popes from 1741 failed to uphold the decree of their predecessor and worse, some of they actually allowed in one way or another the flock to accept that heresy as a fact of science, and facts of science cannot be heresies according to modernism.

Now according to Olivieri and Pope Pius VI that makes me a heretic for believing a truth. And that is why I put up this thread, to see what others think about this absurdity.

PS. Now I imagine most of us on this forum believe since Vatican II, popes have obscured and denied in one way or another 'more important truths pertaining to religion.' If so, according to Pope Pius VI we are all heretics for knowing this.

McFiggly · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2014, 06:36:39 PM »

McFiggly, the ignorance and presumption in your reply to me compound the sin of willfully distorting (by deliberate omission) the words of the two popes you cite in defense of your 100 percent uninformed and misleading ramblings.

Have an equally distorted day.

Sorry, I did not mean to be ignorant, presumptuous or misleading.

Did God ever intend to have His Church so complicated that one would have to be an St Augustine or a St Thomas to understand it all.

I'm not sure that the Church or the Faith is that complicated, even in light of the current Modernist darkness which hangs over the Church and the world.

[11] That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, nor be polluted with all their transgressions: but may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord of hosts. [12] And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: [13] Son of man, when a land shall sin against me, so as to transgress grievously, I will stretch forth my hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof: and I will send famine upon it, and will destroy man and beast out of it. [14] And if these three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, shall be in it: they shall deliver their own souls by their justice, saith the Lord of hosts. [15] And if I shall bring mischievous beasts also upon the land to waste it, and it be desolate, so that there is none that can pass because of the beasts:

[16] If these three men shall be in it, as I live, saith the Lord, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters: but they only shall be delivered, and the land shall be made desolate. [17] Or if I bring the sword upon that land, and say to the sword: Pass through the land: and I destroy man and beast out of it: [18] And these three men be in the midst thereof: as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they themselves alone shall be delivered. [19] Or if I also send the pestilence upon that land, and pour out my indignation upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast: [20] And Noe, and Daniel, and Job be in the midst thereof: as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter: but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice.

[21] For thus saith the Lord: Although I shall send in upon Jerusalem my four grievous judgments, the sword, and the famine, and the mischievous beasts, and the pestilence, to destroy out of it man and beast, [22] Yet there shall be left in it some that shall be saved, who shall bring away their sons and daughters: behold they shall come among you, and you shall see their way, and their doings: and you shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, in all things that I have brought upon it. [23] And they shall comfort you, when you shall see their ways, and their doings: and you shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord God.

Doesn't this summarize the current situation perfectly? It's not that we have to be St. Augustine's or St. Aquinas' to understand the Church intellectually, it's that we have to have the faith and sanctity of Noah, Daniel, Job; not that those men weren't wise, because they were exceedingly wise, but I think the Lord here is more referring to their piety as opposed to the impiety of their many peers.

You say the Pythagorean/Copernican heresy was not one of the 'more important truths pertaining to religion.' I would question Pope Pius VI's words here: are there more important and less important truths pertaining to religion?

The Copernican heresy was designed by Satan to destroy one of the fundamental rocks of Catholicism, Faith and reason. It was designed to get Catholics to begin a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis in particular. Copernicanism was designed to destroy the dogma of Trent, that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted.

For me then, the 1616 decree was one of the more important decrees in the history of the Church. It was the first defence against Modernism. Once popes destroyed this defence the gates of modernism were opened up and we are now where we are.

You ask me: 'Are you saying that the popes and cardinals were heretics for not condemning Copernicanism and not excommunicating those that preached the error/heresy pertinaciously?

Of all the heresies ever defined and declared by way of decree, probably none was more known or famous in history than Galileo's heresy. Trouble is, from the very beginning there were those Catholics who really believed that heliocentrism was a scientific fact. In other words their faith in reason was greater than their faith in Catholic tradition. Moreover, because of the subject matter of the Scriptural interpretation that they denied was the created order of the creation, they believed it wasn't a REAL HERESY, more a scientific heresy, that they could deny it and ignore it. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine had already said to deny this interpretation was no different than denying the Virgin Birth, as they are BOTH revealed by the word of God. Now does that make them heretics? Does believing in what their predecessor defined as heresy, not make them heretics? I do not define and declare what is heresy, popes do. If I believe what a pope defined as heresy, can I say that one who freely adheres to that heresy is not a heretic? Wouldn't that make me a heretic?

So, what I do say is that popes from 1741 failed to uphold the decree of their predecessor and worse, some of they actually allowed in one way or another the flock to accept that heresy as a fact of science, and facts of science cannot be heresies according to modernism.

Now according to Olivieri and Pope Pius VI that makes me a heretic for believing a truth. And that is why I put up this thread, to see what others think about this absurdity.

I agree the Copernicanism has been extremely harmful. However, I'm not convinced that the popes did believe in Copernicanism or teach it. I would only go as far as saying that they did not condemn this heresy enough, but this was a judgement that the Churchmen made for the sake of prudence because they were cautious of creating further scandal, as in the eyes of the world Galileo had embarrassed the Church. Now, this did indeed set a very dangerous precedent: it started the trend of the Church negotiating with the modern world, which would eventually culminate in Vatican II. However, the Churchmen themselves DID NOT negotiate with / sell out to the world until Vatican II; it was only the Modernists within the Church who had fully imbibed Copernicanism and all its consequences who were doing this selling out, and these Modernists were thoroughly condemned by the popes. In other words, the polluted streams of Modernism had entered into the sewers of the Church through Galileo, but the Church itself was still completely sound until the sewer monsters that had been breeding throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries leaped out of the sewers and usurped the Church. I hope that makes sense. Pope Pius X looked into the sewers and saw the Modernist Monsters down there and was disgusted by them, and utterly and totally condemned them . . . but they kept breeding.

This is the problem, I think: the Church had two options: they had either to take a strict stance and say NO, Copernicanism was wrong as per the infallible decree of the Church and that the modern scientists were in error, or they had to concede to the modern scientists and either engage in weak apology for or simple silence on the Galileo fiasco.
The first option -
pros: it sets a strong precedent that the Church is never going to concede to the world, that it will remain faithful to what it is always taught, that it will maintain its right to teach not only correct theology but also correct philosophy and science.
cons: the Church comes across like Protestant "biblical fundamentalists" who champion "Faith over Reason", because the world has been bamboozled by the scientists with their deceptive "proofs".
The second option
pros: the Church has a chance to remain the protector of both Faith and Reason in the eyes of the world by seeming to accommodate for the scientists who had become the champions of Reason.
cons: it sets a precedent where scientists and philosophers will begin to claim that they don't need the Church's approbation to teach what they please, that the Church's condemnations are false and superstitious, etc.

See, what happened is that the Church's commitment to Faith AND Reason as opposed to the Protestant Faith Alone worked to its disadvantage. By conceding to the modern scientists more rights than they deserved the Churchmen were unfortunately lead to believe that they were simply giving Reason its rights, when the truth is that we allowing rights to unreason and error. They wanted the world to believe that the Church was still the protector of Reason, but this was foolish: they should have known that once the scientists had seemingly won one victory over the Church they'd use it as an excuse to win many more until they had established Reason Alone in the world.
It's a really ingenious trap set up by the Devil that they fell into. It's the same trap that Catholics fall in today when they falsely believe that they have to defend Evolution because, "we Catholics aren't anti-Reason like those Fideist Protestants!", well, it turns out that those "fundamentalist Protestants", those "bible thumpers", are actually right when it comes to Evolution, that - irony of ironies - it's the Protestants, of all people, that are defending Reason and the Church that is upholding the Fideism of the modern scientists. The Church bought the scientists propaganda that the scientists were the patrons of Reason. The whole world still believes that scientists are disciples of Reason, when their empiricist philosophy/metaphysics and their assertion of unjustified dogmas like Evolution are the height of unreason. It really is a shame that many of the Protestants have shown more resistance to these disgusting errors that scientists have been putting out over the years, and the reason for it is the Devil has been playing off of the Church's commitment to Faith AND Reason, the false perception that scientists are the champions of Reason, and the hobgoblin of "backwards, superstitious, dark-ages, bible thumpers". Look at Sungenis' film about geocentrism and how angrily some Catholics have responded to it because they want so much for the world to believe that Catholicism is the friend of Reason as opposed to those dimwit Protestants.

MrYeZe · « **Reply #13 on:** September 03, 2014, 07:41:12 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

McFiggly, the ignorance and presumption in your reply to me compound the sin of willfully distorting (by deliberate omission) the words of the two popes you cite in defense of your 100 percent uninformed and misleading ramblings.

Have an equally distorted day.

Sorry, I did not mean to be ignorant, presumptuous or misleading.

Did God ever intend to have His Church so complicated that one would have to be an St Augustine or a St Thomas to understand it all.

I'm not sure that the Church or the Faith is that complicated, even in light of the current Modernist darkness which hangs over the Church and the world.

[11] That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, nor be polluted with all their transgressions: but may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord of hosts. [12] And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: [13] Son of man, when a land shall sin against me, so as to transgress grievously, I will stretch forth my hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof: and I will send famine upon it, and will destroy man and beast out of it. [14] And if these three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, shall be in it: they shall deliver their own souls by their justice, saith the Lord of hosts. [15] And if I shall bring mischievous beasts also upon the land to waste it, and it be desolate, so that there is none that can pass because of the beasts:

[16] If these three men shall be in it, as I live, saith the Lord, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters: but they only shall be delivered, and the land shall be made desolate. [17] Or if I bring the sword upon that land, and say to the sword: Pass through the land: and I destroy man and beast out of it: [18] And these three men be in the midst thereof: as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they themselves alone shall be delivered. [19] Or if I also send the pestilence upon that land, and pour out my indignation upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast: [20] And Noe, and Daniel, and Job be in the midst thereof: as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter: but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice.

[21] For thus saith the Lord: Although I shall send in upon Jerusalem my four grievous judgments, the sword, and the famine, and the mischievous beasts, and the pestilence, to destroy out of it man and beast, [22] Yet there shall be left in it some that shall be saved, who shall bring away their sons and daughters: behold they shall come among you, and you shall see their way, and their doings: and you shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, in all things that I have brought upon it. [23] And they shall comfort you, when you shall see their ways, and their doings: and you shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord God.

Doesn't this summarize the current situation perfectly? It's not that we have to be St. Augustine's or St. Aquinas' to understand the Church intellectually, it's that we have to have the faith and sanctity of Noah, Daniel, Job; not that those men weren't wise, because they were exceedingly wise, but I think the Lord here is more referring to their piety as opposed to the impiety of their many peers.

You say the Pythagorean/Copernican heresy was not one of the 'more important truths pertaining to religion.' I would question Pope Pius VI's words here: are there more important and less important truths pertaining to religion?

The Copernican heresy was designed by Satan to destroy one of the fundamental rocks of Catholicism, Faith and reason. It was designed to get Catholics to begin a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis in particular. Copernicanism was designed to destroy the dogma of Trent, that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted.

For me then, the 1616 decree was one of the more important decrees in the history of the Church. It was the first defence against Modernism. Once popes destroyed this defence the gates of modernism were opened up and we are now where we are.

You ask me: 'Are you saying that the popes and cardinals were heretics for not condemning Copernicanism and not excommunicating those that preached the error/heresy pertinaciously?

Of all the heresies ever defined and declared by way of decree, probably none was more known or famous in history than Galileo's heresy. Trouble is, from the very beginning there were those Catholics who really believed that heliocentrism was a scientific fact. In other words their faith in reason was greater than their faith in Catholic tradition. Moreover, because of the subject matter of the Scriptural interpretation that they denied was the created order of the creation, they believed it wasn't a REAL HERESY, more a scientific heresy, that they could deny it and ignore it. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine had already said to deny this interpretation was no different than denying the Virgin Birth, as they are BOTH revealed by the word of God. Now does that make them heretics? Does believing in what their predecessor defined as heresy, not make them heretics? I do not define and declare what is heresy, popes do. If I believe what a pope defined as heresy, can I say that one who freely adheres to that heresy is not a heretic? Wouldn't that make me a heretic?

So, what I do say is that popes from 1741 failed to uphold the decree of their predecessor and worse, some of they actually allowed in one way or another the flock to accept that heresy as a fact of science, and facts of science cannot be heresies according to modernism.

Now according to Olivieri and Pope Pius VI that makes me a heretic for believing a truth. And that is why I put up this thread, to see what others think about this absurdity.

I agree the Copernicanism has been extremely harmful. However, I'm not convinced that the popes did believe in Copernicanism or teach it. I would only go as far as saying that they did not condemn this heresy enough, but this was a judgement that the Churchmen made for the sake of prudence because they were cautious of creating further scandal, as in the eyes of the world Galileo had embarrassed the Church. Now, this did indeed set a very dangerous precedent: it started the trend of the Church negotiating with the modern world, which would eventually culminate in Vatican II. However, the Churchmen themselves DID NOT negotiate with / sell out to the world until Vatican II; it was only the Modernists within the Church who had fully imbibed Copernicanism and all its consequences who were doing this selling out, and these Modernists were thoroughly condemned by the popes. In other words, the polluted streams of Modernism had entered into the sewers of the Church through Galileo, but the Church itself was still completely sound until the sewer monsters that had been breeding throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries leaped out of the sewers and usurped the Church. I hope that makes sense. Pope Pius X looked into the sewers and saw the Modernist Monsters down there and was disgusted by them, and utterly and totally condemned them . . . but they kept breeding.

This is the problem, I think: the Church had two options: they had either to take a strict stance and say NO, Copernicanism was wrong as per the infallible decree of the Church and that the modern scientists were in error, or they had to concede to the modern scientists and either engage in weak apology for or simple silence on the Galileo fiasco.
The first option -
pros: it sets a strong precedent that the Church is never going to concede to the world, that it will remain faithful to what it is always taught, that it will maintain its right to teach not only correct theology but also correct philosophy and science.
cons: the Church comes across like Protestant "biblical fundamentalists" who champion "Faith over Reason", because the world has been bamboozled by the scientists with their deceptive "proofs".
The second option
pros: the Church has a chance to remain the protector of both Faith and Reason in the eyes of the world by seeming to accommodate for the scientists who had become the champions of Reason.
cons: it sets a precedent where scientists and philosophers will begin to claim that they don't need the Church's approbation to teach what they please, that the Church's condemnations are false and superstitious, etc.

See, what happened is that the Church's commitment to Faith AND Reason as opposed to the Protestant Faith Alone worked to its disadvantage. By conceding to the modern scientists more rights than they deserved the Churchmen were unfortunately lead to believe that they were simply giving Reason its rights, when the truth is that we allowing rights to unreason and error. They wanted the world to believe that the Church was still the protector of Reason, but this was foolish: they should have known that once the scientists had seemingly won one victory over the Church they'd use it as an excuse to win many more until they had established Reason Alone in the world.
It's a really ingenious trap set up by the Devil that they fell into. It's the same trap that Catholics fall in today when they falsely believe that they have to defend Evolution because, "we Catholics aren't anti-Reason like those Fideist Protestants!", well, it turns out that those "fundamentalist Protestants", those "bible thumpers", are actually right when it comes to Evolution, that - irony of ironies - it's the Protestants, of all people, that are defending Reason and the Church that is upholding the Fideism of the modern scientists. The Church bought the scientists propaganda that the scientists were the patrons of Reason. The whole world still believes that scientists are disciples of Reason, when their empiricist philosophy/metaphysics and their assertion of unjustified dogmas like Evolution are the height of unreason. It really is a shame that many of the Protestants have shown more resistance to these disgusting errors that scientists have been putting out over the years, and the reason for it is the Devil has been playing off of the Church's commitment to Faith AND Reason, the false perception that scientists are the champions of Reason, and the hobgoblin of "backwards, superstitious, dark-ages, bible thumpers". Look at Sungenis' film about geocentrism and how angrily some Catholics have responded to it because they want so much for the world to believe that Catholicism is the friend of Reason as opposed to those dimwit Protestants.

Eh, actually, they can still admit Copernicus is right and still not err in their judgement of Galileo. Even if Copernicism is true (which I believe it is) Galileo's 'theory' of heliocentrism was still dead wrong, as it contradicted all the scientific evidence available at the time. Even then, today, it's still wrong, as Galileo's theory of heliocentirsm has some significant differences with the modern, accepted version, one difference being that he thought the Sun was the actual center of the entire universe, and that he thought that the Sun caused the tides, not the moon. So, either way you look at it, Galileo's theory was still wrong, and, as such, the Church must apologize for nothing.

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** September 03, 2014, 09:26:36 PM »

Three articles of Copernicanism

1-- E rev around S:true
2-- S is therefore fixed and not E: false as both are in motion.
3-- S is center of U: false

Conclusion--- As 2 of 3 articles are false, Copernicanism is mostly wrong( which he suspected) while article one has been proven true by Newton & then Bradley. :cheers:

Galileo's final censure, while in astronomical terms, is really about his atomist physical theories which end up in a denial of the Doctrine of Real Presence. See Redondi-- Galieo Heretic :reporter: