klas: Hoffman in my opinion is definitely a mixed bag.  Over the years he has written some very good things (and he put up a very admirable defense of Bishop Williamson regarding the h0Ɩ0h0αx affair), but to call into question the very sanctity of some of the great pre-Vatican II saints including that Doctor of the Church (and founder of the Redemptorists and patron of confessors and moral theologians) St. Alphonus Liguori in my opinion is definitely beyond the pale.  

I agree.  Hoffman's seeming disdain for the Fatima message is equally troubling.  I mention this author only in connection with the Church's historical decline.  I think he is a bit more accurate and honest about the downward trajectory than the average sspx leader is.  That it all fell off after V2 is kind of a ridiculous summation of the facts.

.
If Fr. Robinson fails to explain in his book that it's impossible to be a believer in evolution and big-bangism, while at the same time be a believer in creation as the Bible clearly teaches and likewise does the Church, then he has seriously failed as a priest author.
.
And if he has seriously failed, then the SSPX has seriously failed by featuring his book.
.
There are plenty of Protestants around who are quite confident that someone's belief in theistic evolution is not an impediment for salvation, because it's not "the salvation issue" (i.e., Do you have a personal relationship with the Father through the Son?). So then the SSPX would basically be promoting the same line the Baptists teach.

It would seem that an SSPX seminarian would have to either go with the flow in accepting Robinson's book or risk expulsion if he openly criticized it.  If on the other hand, he inwardly rejected it, but openly tried to look the other way one can only wonder what kind of a product he would be once he would be ordained.  Would he continue to play the game or would he openly speak out against the book?  This example would seem to present a microcosm of the world of potential conflicts a TradCat seminarian would have to deal with as he maneuvered through the obstacle course to ordination in the rebranded SSPX.

@cassini

A pope does not have a binding duty to ban a book containing heresy. It may be more prudent to have them scientists find out for themselves that there is no ether wind. So, releasing a book from the index is not in principle a problem.

You have studied the history concerning the Galilei-case and later history. Do you have any proof, or evidence, or hint, that a pope since 1633 was (in your view) (objectively) heretic by not confessing, what Galilei had to confess?

I see the relevance of the Galilei-case for the situation today. (the clown) Ratzinger confirmed that, too. Can you prove any indubitable fault of any relevant churchman? Is there any relevant papal pronunciation (before the 1960s), which conflicts with what Galilei had to confess?

Or asked in a different way: Do you have evidence, that the single most candidate event for the "abomination of desolation" was before the 1960s?

The question you ask Struthio, in the context of the Galileo case, is probably the most important one in the light of our Catholic faith.

There is no doubt but that there was a terrible loss of faith by popes and churchmen once it was proposed science had proven heliocentrism right and geocentrism wrong. Here once again is a summary of this loss of faith by a poster.

‘Having studied the history of the 1758-1835 ‘decisions’ [to take heliocentric books off the Index], I think we would all agree the current miasma does not constitute a formal teaching of Copernicanism by the Magisterium. Nonetheless, a very efficacious appearance of official backtracking (not to mention the appearance of a perceived admission by Rome of having made a grievous error on a matter involving interpretation of Divine Revelation) has been the principal cause of incalculable deleterious effects.
Quoting Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris: “Who so turns his attention to the bitter strife of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them.” We may say that [Galileo’s reformation] with its manifold implications for both Faith and Reason constitutes the principle error by which the world is now fallen into so low a state. Therefore, while we should strongly affirm that the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church, they have nevertheless prevailed upon countless poor souls who have been damned in no small part because they came to believe, through science falsely so called, that Divine Revelation was not merely irrelevant, but positively mythology, which is, by definition, worthy of no intellectual assent upon authority. From 1758 the faith of the Churchmen grew cold as they began to doubt the motives for credibility of the Divine Revelation. Had they been men of unswerving faith [like Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825) Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome, 1820] they would have gladly risen to the challenge presented by the emerging scientism establishment. From 1616 onwards, Jesus Christ threw down the gauntlet to his ministers. They had well within their power the means of combating the two super errors of Copernicanism and Darwinism. As we can now agree – science has never falsified the Revelation. What we see in the churchmen, therefore, is not ultimately a problem in the rational natural order. It is ultimately a problem in the supernatural order. They lost their faith through the art of temptation and deception [as Albert Pike described]. They were tempted to believe in another kind of revelation – that which comes through demons. In this they are no different than Adam and Eve. They began to believe the report of science on its own authority. They gave human reason a higher decree of credibility than Divine Revelation. This is a sin against Faith.

Admittedly, faith builds upon nature. And we may conjecture that had not the churchmen first fallen into the errors of naturalism and rationalism, which have for their express purpose the annihilation of the supernatural order, they would have succuмbed to the metaphysical errors that propound absurdly as the truth. First went their faith, and then went their reason. We tear off the roof to get to the foundation. [Who cannot] affirm that “the granting of Imprimaturs [to heliocentric books] is not an exercise of the teaching office, of the divinely protected office of the sacred magisterium.” We say Deo Gratias, but we also lament because the innumerable damned who were/are not able to make such subtle distinctions.

[Some] say that the issue is now coming to a head. We think [they] are correct. We think the cat is out of the bag now. We think the conspiracy of all cօռspιʀαcιҽs is shortly to become common knowledge. You say these falsifications will expose the Church to an Earthquake of shocking proportions because it will force a full and honest examination of the process whereby the magisterium at Vatican II imposed upon the faithful an obligation of “religious submission” to teachings that were predicated upon an attempted harmonization of apostolic and Catholic metaphysics, with inherently contradictory Darwinian and relativistic metaphysics. Contrast this with the teaching found in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Council I. There is an extremely interesting defined doctrinal decree articulated in that beautiful docuмent. It reads: “All faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.” There is one error – the principal and primary error, the source of all the hellish lies and deceits swallowing up [those in] Church and State, and the first principle of its sterile offspring evolutionism – that falls under this magisterial pronouncement; and it is the error of Galileoism. By definition this error is science falsely so-called, is contrary to the Catholic Faith and has been formally condemned [as heresy] by the Church. We know that Vatican Council I is an unfinished business. It was violently curtailed by the onset of the Franco-Prussian war. What it did accomplish, however, was magnificent. Most think of its importance in terms of its authoritative definition of papal infallibility. I see its import under another aspect. It firmly establishes the bedrock principles of the two highest sciences – Sacred Theology and Natural Philosophy, and in particular Metaphysics. These principles, in turn, are the weaponry of the true and efficacious counter offensive. These are principles upon which we will rest the full restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences, which will, in its turn restore the proper orders of Faith and Reason. The principle errors are not merely doctrinal. They are philosophical and metaphysical. Metaphysical error causes doctrinal error. Faith builds upon nature. Philosophy is known as the Preamble or Disposition of the Faith. As Pope Leo XIII affirms: If the intellect sins at all, the will follows. If the intellect is dark, then the soul is not disposed to receive the motives of credibility.

The purpose of the Church is twofold: Define and reaffirm the particular immutable principles necessary for the age, and then apply them by way of canons and condemnations. Vatican II failed on both accounts. It failed to restate and redefine the most important principles of both Faith and Reason necessary for this age, and it failed to make appropriate condemnations. Many believed that the fruit of the Vatican II would be, in addition to the long-awaited definition of the Dogma of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, an official condemnation of communism. But this was impossible because within the ambiguities of the Council docuмents are found the poorly concealed, erroneous principles of Marxism, relativism, and evolutionism. Satan does not caste out Satan. Vatican Council I is still on hold. It has not yet been consummated. The principles it reaffirmed are yet to be applied to particular errors. When we finally see the great healing Council, the great Flood Council, and the great Cadaver Synod as some call it, the great work of the Church that will away the filth of false science like a new Deluge, we will see the principles of Vatican I explicitly applied to the two errors of Galileo and Darwin.’    
--------------------------------------------
Finally Struthio, I will answer your question. First of all not one pope of the U-turn in history actually challenged or rejected as papal the 1616 decree. Neither did God allow any pope to give Galileo an official retrial. As Catholics we have God's promise that popes do not make mistakes when using their office to define a heresy or a dogma.

On a personal note, I have no doubt every pope involved in moving the elimination of heliocentric books did so in their belief that heliocentrism was proven by science. Thus their heresy was MATERIAL, carrying no guilt or sin against faith.

First of all not one pope of the U-turn in history actually challenged or rejected as papal the 1616 decree. Neither did God allow any pope to give Galileo an official retrial. As Catholics we have God's promise that popes do not make mistakes when using their office to define a heresy or a dogma.

Yes, true. If a pope had done that, he wouldn't have been pope in the first place, or would have ceased to be pope when he did. That is obvious, given God's promise.

Additionally, it is against basic reason to imagine that someone could be a Catholic, confessing the faith, and be a heretic at the same time. This applies to any Catholic, including any pope. So if a pope would have believed that the propositions, which Galilei was asked to confess, were wrong, he would not have been a Catholic.

On a personal note, I have no doubt every pope involved in moving the elimination of heliocentric books did so in their belief that heliocentrism was proven by science. Thus their heresy was MATERIAL, carrying no guilt or sin against faith.

First a note on terminology: The expressions "material heresy" and "formal heresy" are (to say the least) somewhat awkward. There is no matter without form and no form without matter. The whole philosophical concept of form and matter seems to be misunderstood. I know there is literature using these terms, but one should question the authors' way of thinking.

A distinction between "material heresy" and "formal heresy" is absurd. A proposition contradicting a dogma or affirming what has been anathematized is always a heresy (and never "only a material heresy" whatever that may be).

A person affirming a heretical proposition may be a heretic or in error. That is a useful and relevant distinction. He is a heretic in case he is aware of the dogma he contradicts, or "just erring", in case he is not aware of the existence of the dogma.

Now back to the said popes. Obviously you assume, that the said popes knew well, what dogmas Galilei had to confess. Practically, that's the only reasonable assumption. If you were right, and they had rejected these truths, they would have been heretics and not Catholics. In case they were heretics "only in their hearts", we wouldn't mind, how could we mind what we ignore?! We ignore what is only in peoples hearts. But if you're right and they had said or shown what is in their hearts, we would know they were heretics and not Catholics. (I recommend to never think "heretic" but always "heretic and not Catholic", maybe one should even say and write it exclusively that way.)


I don't agree with your assessment. I think you imagine these popes like many modern folk with a lack of philosophical education, who are fallen for a scientism, who make science their idol, who think fallible science was infallible. Who don't know about falsifiablity,
who are thrilled by steam-engines, cars, planes, rockets, space stations and other "magic" or magic.

Aeterni Patris of Leo XIII is about philosophy and not about natural science. It is a call to return to Thomas Aquinas and to reject the new philosophies of the obscuring "enlightenment". Not about Galilei, Newton, or the hilarious Foucault pendulum. About Kant, Hegel, Marx etc. Aeterni Patris was published two years before the 1881 first Michelson-Morley Experiment in Potsdam, adjacent to Berlin. You can imagine, that belief in the hypnotizing pendulum must have been at the upper limit. Leo mentions the already then much beloved natural science and puts it below philosophy. Both are useful but both suffer from the same problems fallen man suffers. Both must submit to dogma. Should he think of the hypnotizing pendulum, he seems to be quite sure that the conclusions are based on bad philosophy. Today we know, he was right. I don't see any reason to assume that his predecessors where blinded by the pendulum.

Do you have any hints or even quotes for your assessment? Or what is your reason to suspect disbelief?

Thank you, cassini.

What I do know is that sedevacantists have a profound interest in making sure the 1616 decree had no authority at all. For them, sedevacantism began at Vatican II, and not 1741 which would mean that Catholicism was not divine.

I agree with the view that non-Catholics can't hold offices in the church, that heretics lose offices ipso facto, that Vatican II was a solemn collective declaration of heresy. On the other hand, I disagree with all sedevacantists and sedevacantist groups I know of on one or more crucial topics. The main and most common problem I see is: They typically do not hesitate to adduce all sorts of fallible arguments or quotes from fallible sources to reject defined dogma or to accept anathematized heresy. To be fair: This way of rejecting dogma is in no way limited to sedevacantists.

My understanding of the 1616 decree and of the 1633 verdict is: As far as the faith is concerned they bind every Catholic including popes. As far as the Index of forbidden books is concerned, it's a question of jurisdiction, which is fallible. I don't think, it can be regarded as an outward act positively indicating heresy, like an act of worship in a temple of the Heliocentrists (or Relativists) would be.

I think the reason for most sedevacantists to reject geocentrism, is the same as for everyone else. Geocentrism and Flat-Earthism as cusswords have been synonymous before the recent renaissance of Flat-Earthism.


The verdict against Galilei could be abrogated or declared unjust, as far as the person Galilei is concerned. But condemned errors

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 and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

cannot be exchanged by a declaration that the errors aren't errors and that the pope erred when condemning them. Thus we know for sure what is absurd and false philosophically and heretical or erroneous in faith. To be aware of these condemnations and to contradict one or more of them, implicitly includes the heretical proposition that the Church could err when condemning false propositions.

You distinguish between science and philosophy but in Galileo's time both were considered the same.

Yes, I am aware of that. Newton's "principia mathematica" were those of his "natural philosophy" not "natural science". But Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century is speaking of philosophy in a more modern sense. The text shows it and he has a separate paragraph (#30) about "natural science", calling it "natural science". Under the titel "On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy" there is one of 34 paragraphs about natural science. Francis has posted the complete text on his blog.

It would seem that an SSPX seminarian would have to either go with the flow in accepting Robinson's book or risk expulsion if he openly criticized it.  If on the other hand, he inwardly rejected it, but openly tried to look the other way one can only wonder what kind of a product he would be once he would be ordained.  Would he continue to play the game or would he openly speak out against the book?  This example would seem to present a microcosm of the world of potential conflicts a TradCat seminarian would have to deal with as he maneuvered through the obstacle course to ordination in the rebranded SSPX.

.
I agree. ------- And you touch on the larger issue as well, for this principle applies to other topics equally.
.
If the NeoSSPX is going to backslide into Newchurch, it will do so affecting many doctrines of the traditional Faith of Catholics.
.
Any seminarians who resist on any front will be penalized or expelled.
And anyone who keeps quiet just so as to be ordained, will be making himself into one who habitually compromises.