CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.

So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?

Ludicrous.

I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?

Quote

CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.

So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?

Ludicrous.

I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?

Cassini is a member of this forum, so I will not answer for him. He is well able to answer for himself. I will say that I know for certain he is not SV. He is a member of an SSPX chapel. He is not even a member of the resistance, so-called.

It seems to me that he speaks very clearly and in such a way that does not preclude the drawing of relevant distinctions, so as not to arrive at the inferences with which you make a conclusion. These inferences are not necessary logical subsequents of the affirmations contained in his statement, but only possible ones, wholly dependent on additional supporting evidence.

Conclusions based on unsupported inferences, themselves unnecessary, are in the same family as all strawman arguments. For they incorrectly restate a position, usually to prop up an agenda.

Cassini is attempting to alert Catholics to some very unsettling facts: namely that the weakening, the wavering, the corruption of the acts of the popes - not as inaccurately defining but as eclipsing, suppressing, and confusing doctrinal truths - and including reprehensible violations of morality - does not begin with Vatican II.

How is it that we have arrived at the scandalous debacle of the ceremony of two popes canonizing two heretics?

This corruption of the popes had to start somewhere. It did not materialize overnight.

Cassini is pointing his finger in the direction of where we are supposed to look.

What stops us from looking where we are supposed to look is that we have made organizations and organizational positions our own first principles. Thus we react when someone affirms something that appears to coincide with an organizational position not our own, or that appears to cast a shadow on our organization's sacred cow.  

We are supposed to follow Christ and His Truth wherever they lead.

We are supposed to face the Truth, no matter the cost.

If a man knows and understands that Galileo was wrong and that the Church was right, then he will want to understand how the copernican revolution is directly responsible for Vatican II, as its principle. The evidence is abundant, but the belly for it is mostly lacking.  

The SSPX is dying the death for a reason.

I serialize this book to put forth that reason.

Cassini says what he says to put forth that reason.

The problem with the SSPX predates +ABL.
[/color]
[/b]

I don't have time for 59 pages. I just recently clicked on this thread for the first time.

It was (is) one of those topics that just doesn't interest me.

Right now, it interests me only insofar as it involves a charge of material heresy leveled at every Pope since 1835.

The lofty, almost hard to understand, tone of most of the posts in this thread reeks of intellectualism as opposed to down-to-earth common sense.  How is that for ironic!

I'm not one of those science fanatics, even one of the Catholic variety, who gives credence to everything that comes out of the scientific establishment.

Nevertheless, I fail to see how claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun is heretical, much less how that one paradigm shift necessarily leads to belief in evolution, or any other evils.

I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.

I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.

And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.

The origins of the stars and planets is another matter. This is where most mainstream scientists get off the Truth Train. I believe God created them all in an instant. The passage of "billions of years" is unnecessary, and seems to be a palliative to help convince Modern Man (wandering without faith and unconsciously seeking for a new religion) that something could come from nothing. Basically, they believe that "Throw enough eons at it, and a team of monkeys could type up The Illiad." Common sense says that is ridiculous.

I remember an episode of Star Trek: TNG wherein several alien races (including humans) learned that ancient aliens seeded several planets with life billions of years ago. The script writers want you to understand THAT's why all the "humanoid" aliens in the series follow the same basic architectural plan.

That episode would have passed for "deep", as long as one is grossly ignorant.

The whole idea sounds great until you ask: who seeded the SEEDER'S planet? How did life evolve there? Hmmm? "Well, someone must have seeded that planet as well?" Yes, but eventually you're back to square one -- how did life spontaneously organize itself and create itself out of nothing? That's metaphysically impossible.

Scientists can be so smart and yet be so stupid the minute they put on a philosopher's hat. They should stick to experimental science and refrain from making "guesses" that encroach upon the realm of philosophy.

Or you're just missing something.

I don't think the Pope ever infallibly defined that the Sun goes around the Earth. He would never be allowed to define something that erroneous. And why would he? It's outside his area of competence.

If I recall correctly, one of the conditions for infallibility is "on a matter of Faith and Morals". Matters of science such as which bodies orbit which bodies is CERTAINLY not in the realm of faith and morals.

From what I heard about the Galileo case, it wasn't his proposition that was condemned "in a vacuum", but rather how Galileo was handling it.

Science has since proven that the planets go around the Sun. That case is pretty open-and-shut. Talk about needing to acknowledge the truth!

Now I can tell you why evolution (which is an error) doesn't work, etc. but you can't give me reasons why Geocentrism is heretical or erroneous. You just erroneously believe that unless you believe Heliocentrism, the Church is somehow broken.

I disagree.

Why not just leave Theology to the Theologians, Science to the Scientists, and use your armchair for something other than Theology -- maybe some books about family life, raising children or something more relevant to your state in life?

And yes, I'm assuming you are neither a theologian nor a scientist. If I assumed wrong, the fault is yours for not giving your credentials at the beginning of this thread.

I'm a non-theologian, non-scientist myself, but I haven't written (or promoted as a personal crusade) a magnum opus for the world to read and follow, suggesting that every pope since 1835 was in material heresy (minimum). Therefore you've placed yourself above your competence, whereas I (meanwhile) have not.

There seems to be a bit of complexity to the Galileo case:

The Galileo Controversy

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.

 

Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

 

Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to docuмent the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other docuмents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

 

Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circuмstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "in regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

 

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecuмenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

Quote from: Cassini

heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy.

I don't believe it.

Instead of giving me your personal summary, how about you cut to the chase with some actual Papal docuмents?

Right then Matthew, first Cardinal Robert Bellarmine on whether it is a matter for science or for theology;

"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.: --- Letter to Foscarini 1615.--- Letter to Foscarini, published by Prof. Dom. Berti in his work Copernico… Rome, 1876. Translation from Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, New York, Desclee, 1966, pp.60-63.

Pope Paul V agreed. Now by all means Matthew you can put yourself forward and tell your fellow Catholics the popes and Bellarmine were wrong.  

Now there was another like yourself who stated it was not heresy, his name was Galileo. So he was put on trial FOR HERESY and according to the Holy Office records here is how he was put right on the matter. The following by the way was dictated by Pope urban VIII:

The Inquisition’s Sentence - dictated by Pope urban VIII

“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. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class.  From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”’

Galileo’s Abjuration
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. ...
Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be."
---- Both above from the work of Giorgius Polaccus entitled “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de terræ statione et de solis motu, contra systema Copernicanum Catholicæ  assertionis” (Venice, 1644). The Italian texts of these docuмents are almost certainly the original. See Sousa, Aphor. Inqui. lib. ii. c. xl. p. 379; Sacra Arsenale, pp. 353-4, xlix.;  Carena, Dc Off. S. Inq. pars iii. lit. xii. 31.

Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration.

The heresy was then promulgated among Catholic nations like so:

“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 in case they fell into the same.”’  --- From Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.
   
This was accomplished, and in many cases the professors of 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 Copernicanism to be a serious heresy.