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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93  (Read 1513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

Re: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2021, 08:58:49 PM »
Listen to this video, more on Hans Kung that you not read and hear on mainline Catholic news-media.
Kung denied every Catholic doctrine that we must believe to be saved. All you need to be damned is deny
one Catholic Doctrine, and much, much more 48 minutes, worth your time.



https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/04/09/weekly-news-roundup-04-09-2021-different-easter-messages-globalist-ban-of-natural-law-disappearnace-of-dissenter/
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2021, 07:57:01 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 08, 2021, 02:30:44 PM
I'd like to study more WHAT was condemned.  If it was condemned to say that the sun is fixed, then science has since proven that the sun moves ... even by their standards.  Now, I'm a firm believer in geocentrism ... and even lean toward a flat immovable earth, but I might be interested in studying precisely what was condemned and why.

I shall begin the questions asked on the subject with you Ladislaus.
Here is the 1616 decree, the one that led to the condemnations and then Galileo's trial in 1633. It explains exactly why Galileo's natural and Biblican sun did not orbit the Earth.

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

In his letter to Foscarini below, Cardinal Bellarmine explains why the Church condemned the denial of a LOCAL (from one place to another) movement of the sun around the Earth as formal heresy, NOTHING MORE. 'Science' they say, has proven it is the Earth that orbits the sun, not the other way around. Science cannot do that as cosmology for the last hundred years has admitted.

‘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 prophets and apostles.’
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2021, 08:46:54 AM »
Quote from: Cryptinox on April 08, 2021, 01:58:31 PM
I would like to see the proofs of the decree being infallible.

Before we get to the 'proofs' for infallibility, let us consider the absurdity of a pope defining and declaring a certain contradiction of Scripture formal heresy in 1616 that was not protected by divine infallibility. Second, infallibility, in this case, means it is compulsory on all the flock and is guaranteed it will never be proven wrong.

After 400 years of philosophers and science claiming it was proven wrong, even getting popes to believe it was, it turns out it never was proven wrong. In other words, its infallibility was proven by this mere fact. 

First of all Pope Paul V in 1616 was Prefect of the Holy Office, set up after the Protestant Reformation to combat HERESY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Nothing coming from this Office can happen without its Prefect, the reigning Pope, ordering it. That makes the 1616 decree papal. This was made clear when Cardinal Bellarmine told Galileo it was ordered 'in the name of his Holiness the Pope.' 

The second confirmation that the decree had to be infallible when Pope Urban VIII ordered the following at Galileo's trial for Heresy. Heresy, we know, is to contradict a dogma, nothing less.

“Understanding,” the Sacred Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” 

Now tell me that the above is an opinion that does not confirm an absolute doctrinal certainty. Something declared and defined by a pope has to be infallible or no other definition and declaration made by other popes can be taken as a catholic truth.

The third confirmation of the 'unrevisability' of the 1616 decree came in 1820 from the Commissionary General of the Inquisition himself, Fr Olivieri, a heliocentric believer. He admotted in the records found in the Archives that the 1616 decree was unrevisable, that is infallible.

In Fr W. W. Roberts's book THE PONTIFICAL DECREES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARTH's  MOVEMENT AND THE ULTRAMONTAIN DEFGENCE OF THEM shows without a doubt the 1616 decree was a papal act of the Ordinary Magisterium and Infallible.

I will paste some of this book in my next post.
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2021, 09:08:47 AM »
Fr Roberts’s arguments on the authority of the 1616 ruling:

‘It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledg­ment from my opponent that the terms of the condemna­tion meant “heresy,” and nothing short of it; that the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and in effect said, that heliocentricism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no matter who says it, ‘whether a ‘Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith. To generate an obli­gation of faith, it is by no means necessary that the witness to the fact of revelation should claim for his testimony infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear, ne non locutus sit Deus…..

It is important to bear in mind that in the case before us the Index was called into action to give effect to the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, a Congregation that is in a very special way under Papal direction. The Pope as pope is its president. He is present at its meetings every Thursday. He has in­formed the Church that he reserves the presidency of this Congregation to himself, because of the intimate con­nection of its decisions with the preservation of the faith. But if the Pope when he acts as its president never intends to act in the capacity wherein he is divinely secured from making mistakes, how delusive is this assurance! What good does the Church get from his presidency? The Pope not divinely assisted is likely, nay, in a vast number of cases, far more likely, to decide erroneously than some of his Cardinals. And as to his superior authority, the more authoritative an erroneous decision is, the more harm it is likely to do. Either, then, the judgments in question are ex cathedrâ; or the Pope claims to decide doctrinal questions for all Catholics in a capacity in which he is liable to make mistakes, and so the Holy See may be a source of error to the Church Universal; or the Pope’s prerogative of inerrancy be­longs to him even when he is not speaking ex cathedrâ. Of course there was not, and there could not have been, the remotest intention of making geocentricism a matter of faith by the mere force of a definition; but the question the Copernican controversy raised was whether the doctrine of the sun’s diurnal movement was not already of faith in virtue of the plain state­ments of Holy Scripture [and judgments of previous popes against Pythagoreanism]. The Roman church, as John De Lugo says, propounds the whole of Holy Scripture, and every part of it, to be received as the Word of God, so that to contradict the express assertion of a sacred writer is not less heresy than to contradict the definition of a general council. To say that Abraham had not two sons is not less heresy than to say that our Lord had not two wills. Unquestionably the sacred writers, in terms, ascribe diurnal movement to the sun [daily orbit]; therefore, urged the anti-­Copernican theologian, the theory that denies that move­ment is false and heretical. The conclusion is irresistible, if the language objected is so expressed as to forbid the supposition that not real, but only apparent movement may be meant. And that it is so expressed is what Rome in effect decided, when on the one hand she pronounced the heliocentric theses false, and altogether adverse to the divine Scriptures and on the other condemned as destructive to Catholic truth the advocacy of an opposite opinion [1616]. After this, the thoroughly submissive Catholic had no alternative but to recog­nise the heretical character of the new system; yet the decision plainly proceeded on the assumption that the matter was not open to legitimate doubt before its issue; and therefore, however clearly ex cathedrâ, it would be a judgment of a very different kind from that by which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. On turning to Marie Dominique Bouix’s Tractatus de Curia Romana we learn that there are three kinds of Congrega­tional decrees; (1) Those that the Pope puts forth in his own name after consulting a Congregation; (2) Those that a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope’s confirmation, or express order to publish. (3) Those that a Congregation with the Pope’s sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope’s con­firmation or express order to publish. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex cathedrâ, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Fr Antonio Zaccaria, a very great authority, even decrees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so.’

We see Fr Roberts’s contention then was that whereas the 1616 ruling was not an extraordinary definition of a pope defining a new dogma, such as Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, but was an infallible act of the Ordinary magisterium protecting what was always a matter of faith; the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, one of those ‘never intended to be brought to light’ matters of faith as the Council of Trent categorised them. This was the exact position held by the popes and Cardinal Bellarmine when in 1640 the 1616 decree was publicly introduced as condemning ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine’ already condemned by many Fathers and popes in the past centuries.

But Fr Roberts believed that geocentrism was proven wrong. So he, like Hans Kung, had to conclude the dogma of infallibility of Vatican I was a false doctrine.

‘But it is almost as easy to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: that heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum (1620) explained it; “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Pope Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition, the decision taught that heliocentrism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, ob­viously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true…..’ Fr Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.13-20. quoted in the book The Earthmovers.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Über-Modernist Theologian Hans Küng Dead at 93
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2021, 10:16:09 AM »
Quote from: Matto on April 08, 2021, 02:46:43 PM
Geocentrism and flat immovable earth are different models. One can not believe in both. Geocentrism makes sense. Flat earth does not. The problem I have with geocentrism is that I do not understand how satellites, particularly geosynchronous ones would work in such a model but otherwise it is believable. Flat earth does not make sense to me at all. Though it was fun watching Father Pfeiffer debate the flat earthers among his following.

Of course one can believe in both.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »