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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

Author Topic: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax  (Read 18414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Melanie

Re: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2022, 09:13:48 AM »
Quote from: Yeti on September 12, 2022, 04:44:41 PM
.
The statement that Rome will lose the Faith, etc. is a quote from the text that the Church placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Yes, the apparition itself was approved by the Church, that is true. This is a little confusing, but the apparition was approved, while a text that Melanie published which she claims was told to her by Our Lady in that apparition was condemned. And it wasn't condemned by "many bishops", but by the Holy Office, which operates directly under papal authority, and the decrees of which bind all Catholics.

It's a strange story, for sure. Apparently what happened is that Our Lady truly did appear to Melanie and Maximin, and gave both of them secrets, which they wrote down and sent to the pope at the time. What they wrote has never been revealed. But nearly 30 years later, Melanie wrote and published the text of what is called today the "Secret of La Salette", which the quote about Rome losing the Faith comes from. The Holy Office compared this text with the original unpublished one that Melanie had mailed in 30 years before, and said that the second one was "not authentic" (i.e. not the same as the original), and not doctrinally sound, and placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Most people today naturally assume that, since the apparition is approved by the Church, that the text that Melanie published is a true message from Our Lady. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, but if you study the facts of this apparition, it is not true. The real story is a bit of a saga, but if you read the article I posted earlier that quotes all the relevant communications from the Holy Office about Melanie, you start to get a better mental picture of what really happened.

The true message of La Salette was the original one that people had to stop swearing and violating the Sunday.
This is an embarrassing episode, for the Church to approve an apparition and then have to go on and place the seer on the index.  Perhaps the Church should wait until the visionary is dead before approving an apparition.   I have always been confused by this myself and it seems like it would be sinful to spread this message that was later published by Melanie and it has been widely spread.  What on earth did the Blessed Virgin tell in secret that did not appear to help the Church to avoid a devastating crisis anyway?  So weird.  I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible.  
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2022, 10:18:39 AM »
Quote from: Melanie on September 13, 2022, 09:13:48 AM
This is an embarrassing episode, for the Church to approve an apparition and then have to go on and place the seer on the index.  Perhaps the Church should wait until the visionary is dead before approving an apparition.  I have always been confused by this myself and it seems like it would be sinful to spread this message that was later published by Melanie and it has been widely spread.  What on earth did the Blessed Virgin tell in secret that did not appear to help the Church to avoid a devastating crisis anyway?  So weird.  I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible. 
.
Oh, I don't know if it's embarrassing to the Church. Our Lady and appeared to Melanie and told her to tell the world to stop violating the Sunday and stop taking God's name in vain. The Church approved of this, and it was all good. If Melanie went off the reservation later in her life, that's on her. My understanding is that the secret of La Salette was intended to be a private message to Pope Pius IX, and was never intended to be published. If you think about it, any pope since Pius IX could have published that text, but they all chose not to, and we've had some pretty amazing popes in that time period, including Pius IX himself. The idea that he would have been afraid to publish anything he should have published is absolutely laughable. So if he didn't publish it, that means it probably wasn't supposed to be published.

I will admit, though, that this is certainly a bizarre and unique event in the history of the Church, as far as I know. Most seers are holy people, and usually canonized saints -- St. Margaret Mary, St. Bernadette Soubirous, St. Catherine Labore, etc. Even in cases where they aren't canonized, such as Juan Diego or the three children of Fatima, they are still pious people of unimpeachable reputation. Melanie is the only person I've ever heard of who had an approved apparition and then wrote a text that the Church put on the Index.
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2022, 10:23:11 AM »
Quote from: Melanie on September 13, 2022, 09:13:48 AM
I also read a bunch of that book Satanism a Social Hx and it does seem to me that Diana Vaughan was completely made up for a troll and that they trolled St. Therese of Lisieux, which is absolutely horrible. 
.
Yeah, no kidding! These people were monsters. And they trolled Pope Leo XIII too, which is arguably worse.

On the other hand, our Faith requires us to assume the best in people. When Taxil claimed to convert to the Catholic Faith, the bishop had little choice but to take him at his word. Priests can't just go around assuming people are con-artists when they present themselves for admission to the Church. If these people took advantage of the principles of trust that is built into the Catholic religion and used that to prank the Church, I don't think that reflects badly on the Church; it reflects badly on these wretched masons.
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2022, 10:30:37 AM »
Quote from: cassini on September 13, 2022, 03:05:26 AM
Oh, you said: ' but by the Holy Office, which operates directly under papal authority, and the decrees of which bind all Catholics. Ever study what happened the 1616 decree of the Holy Office that defined biblical heliocentrism formal heresy?
.
Yes, I read John Daly's long study on that saga, in which he attempted to reconcile these discrepancies. If I recall correctly (and the whole story was incredibly complicated, but), he said the condemnation of heliocentrism as heretical was addressed to Galileo only, not to the whole Church, so it would be binding only on him. (If I remember correctly). Or it was later addressed to scientists as a group, but not to the whole Church. So a judgment given to only one person or one group of people does not enjoy the type of protection, nor command the universal obedience, that a decree addressed to the whole Church would have.

The Galileo affair is definitely a strange case, but there are rather fine legal distinctions that can be made that resolve most of the difficulties. At least that's how John Daly felt, and attempted to do in his study. I don't really know much about the whole thing beyond what I read, but Daly's explanations seem plausible to me.
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: The "Taxil Hoax" Hoax
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2022, 02:16:44 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on September 14, 2022, 10:30:37 AM
.
Yes, I read John Daly's long study on that saga, in which he attempted to reconcile these discrepancies. If I recall correctly (and the whole story was incredibly complicated, but), he said the condemnation of heliocentrism as heretical was addressed to Galileo only, not to the whole Church, so it would be binding only on him. (If I remember correctly). Or it was later addressed to scientists as a group, but not to the whole Church. So a judgment given to only one person or one group of people does not enjoy the type of protection, nor command the universal obedience, that a decree addressed to the whole Church would have.

The Galileo affair is definitely a strange case, but there are rather fine legal distinctions that can be made that resolve most of the difficulties. At least that's how John Daly felt, and attempted to do in his study. I don't really know much about the whole thing beyond what I read, but Daly's explanations seem plausible to me.

First Yeti, this discussion is not off the original posting. My interest in Diana Vaughan came about from my investigation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's part in the heliocentric heresy. In her 1895 book, ‘Recollections of an Ex-Palladist,’ she mentions Professor Cesare Cremonini, Francis Lord Bacon, Sir Christopher Wren, Elias Ashmole and other freemasons of the Royal Society of London who put the heliocentrism of Isaac Newton forward as a scientific fact without any evidence or proof.

And yes Yeti, the whole story of the Galileo affair has been made incredibly complicated but that is because the galileo affair has been recorded by the VICTORS, the converted heliocentrists who need to pervert the facts in order to 'save the Church' and the papacy of 1616 and 1633 from supposedly falsely defining and declaring Sacred Scripture REVEALS a moving sun backed up by its acceptance of all the Fathers, a dogma that cannot be challenged in the Catholic Church. Galileo's heresy is the only heresy ever to enter the womb of the Catholic Church. When Pope Pius VII allowed it to be believed in the Church, not one pope, cardinal or theologian after him tried to defend the 1616 decree. Whereas the Arian heresy - which was also conjured up based on a false reading of the Bible - was stopped by St Athanasius, there was not one member of the hierarchy who tried to stop the Galilean heresy after 1820. 

In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma (400-1950) there are 35 decrees issued by the same Holy Office from 1602 to 1949 recorded in detail. The only one that included formal heresy, the 1616 decree, is no longer recorded or mentioned among them. That shows me a corruption brought about by the U-turn, one accommodated by thousands of different versions of the affair written up by Catholic authors. If you read Biden's government did such a thing you would say they were corrupt

I too have read John Daly's book. But he is not a Pope either, he gives his opinion, that is all. For example, you write:
'If I recall correctly (and the whole story was incredibly complicated, but), he said the condemnation of heliocentrism as heretical was addressed to Galileo only, not to the whole Church, so it would be binding only on him. (If I remember correctly). Or it was later addressed to scientists as a group, but not to the whole Church.'

My account records:
There remained however, one more condition for the anti-heliocentric decree’s ‘irreversibility,’ it must be made binding on all. 

‘In the summer of 1633, all papal nuncios in Europe and all local inquisitors in Italy received from the Roman Inquisition copies of the sentence against Galileo and his abjuration, together with orders to publicize them. Such publicity [plus posters and flyers] was unprecedented in the annals of the Inquisition and never repeated.’ (Rev. W. Roberts: The pontifical Decrees…, Parker & Co., London, pp.35, 38.)

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer if they fell into the same [heresy].”’ (M. A. Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, p.26.)
   
In many cases professors of philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial docuмents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Galileoism to be a serious heresy. Throughout Europe there were theologians who were relieved with the ban. For example, Andrew White records that the Rector of the University of Douay in France, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels; ‘The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be.’ 

Decrees defining formal heresy are not issued to one person, that is nonsense.
My belief is in the official teaching of the Catholic Church, not conjured up by the heliocentric apologists who must try to make the decree of 1616 non-binding, non infallible. God promised He would prevent OFFICIAL corruption in His Church. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII said it was defined as formal heresy and there was no doubt about that. So, when the U-turn of 1820 began, Pius VII did not deny the 1616 decree was irreformable. He went along with Fr Anfossi who said the 1616 decree remains untouched and irreversible. How they got their cake and still left it intact is another story.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
« previous next »