Who can make head or tail of anything anymore when popes contradict one another as they have been doing since 1835 and more so since 1960.
Can you list the contradictions starting in 1835 till like Pius XII?
This matter has been given a lot of discussion on Catholic forums this last year Tradhician and I am reluctant to bring up the matter once again for it only ignites the wrath of traditional Catholics. However for you I will explain.
In 1616 Pope Paul V defined and decreed Pythagoreanism (heliocentrism) as formal heresy because it contradicts Scripture and the Scriptural interpretation of
all the Fathers. Pope Urban VIII confirmed its unreformability in 1633. I will let a post Vatican II JPII commission describe what happened in 1741:
‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered. For their part, Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything that could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy. The facts were unavoidably clear and soon showed the relative character of the sentence passed in 1633. This sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Papal Commission, 1981-1992.
Note it was 'optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth' that determined the reformability or not of a pope defining something formal heresy. Now since when did science overrule the definition by a pope of formal heresy. Note also they COMPLETELY ignore the 1616 decree as though it had no relevance on the matter. that is the contempt they now have for papal decrees.
‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all banned books].’ --- Galileo Study Commission, 1981-1992.
Now the fact is there were no such proofs. Science cannot falsify holy Scripture. That above is the sort of crap issued by popes and those running the Church, a pack of lies invented to convince all on earth today.
In 1820, My champion, Fr Anfossi (an 1820 Lefebvre), defended as best he could the authority of papal definitions of formal heresy (which means affirming a dogma) but he was up against Modernists that would make your head shake with shame if you read the stuff they used to have their way. But more than that, for they wanted to CHARGE Anfossi for not obeying Pope Pius VII who ordered him to give the heretical book an imprimatur.
I have no doubt this was the heresy that brought the Church into Modernism. It was based on a lie, that science had proven a defined dogma false. It was the sort of heresy that had no affect on one's Catholicism as it was based on a physical matter in Scripture, not on a moral issue or the likes, so few gave it a second thought. My how Lucifer works his lies.
There is no subject matter in the history of the Church as humiliating as this 1741-1835 U-turn on a papal definition. It brought the infallibility of the Church into disrepute for many souls. It brought the literal reading of Genesis as understood by the likes of St Thomas Aquinas into disrepute. If popes got this understanding of Scripture wrong, what else could they have gotten wrong?
So, once the Modernists of the Holy Office convinced Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius VII and Pope Gregory XVI the earth moved and that the Bible must now be REINTERPRETED TO CONFORM WITH SCIENCE they had no problem allowing a defined formal heresy loose on the flock. What a way to judge doctrinal matters. We can then move on to Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII who both promoted the idea that science can alter previous understandings of the Bible, based on the humiliation they believe the 1616 decree brought on the Church.
Then came Vatican II;
‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.
The reference given to this passage was Fr Pio Paschini’s Life and Work of Galileo Galilei, a book on the Galileo case that had been subjected to ‘several hundred modifications’ after Fr Paschini died. Here God is supposedly directing the Galileans throughout the ages while the popes and theologians of 1616/1633 are depicted as little more than fundamentalists, who, ignorant of the progress of science, based their judgements on outmoded scholastic thinking and illusions. On their shoulders, the cardinals and bishops of Vatican II would try to place the centuries of ‘conflict and controversy’ that followed, describing them as no better than troublemakers. To suggest the hand of God was guiding the ‘humble’ Galileo, Kepler and Newton and their fellow heretical defenders and not His popes and helps of the time is an indication of the influence the Earthmovers have had on Catholic thinking. Such a council accusation was outrageous, and to our knowledge not a single churchman disagreed with it, traditional or modernist. Indeed, few even noticed that a man convicted by the Church as being suspected of heresy could be referenced in a council docuмent as being led by the hand of God, and that this council’s conclusion could be based on a book that was no better than a forgery.
The next revisit by a pope to the Galileo case came in the reign of Pope John Paul II (1978-2005). In one of the first public addresses of his pontificate, the Pope called for a new study of the long-contested ‘Galileo affair’ that would permit ‘a frank recognition of wrongs from whatever side they came.’ To this end a papal study commission was set up including many ‘experts’ given different tasks to do the work under the chairmanship of Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture. On the 4th November 1992, the Vatican newspaper L’osservatore Romano published the summary of the commission’s findings given by Cardinal Poupard. This was followed by an acceptance speech by Pope John Paul II. Under the wishful headline ‘Galileo Case is Resolved,’ what emerged was no more than yet another rendition of the Galileo trial and its aftermath as invented by the army of Galilean apologists over the centuries. After 11 years of work, the report had a mixed reaction around the world for various reasons. The secular Press made a joke of whole thing, while others correctly challenged some details of its content.
Sorry Tradhician for having to give a full summary as an answer to your question. Having read every detail available of this papal concession to the lie that this formal heresy could be ignored 'without comment' as to how it could be reversed on a doctrinal level, I have lost all that awe I had for popes after 1741, and it gave me an understanding that God left man in charge of his Church, not angels. What it did do for me was confirm the only thing God still controls in His church, papal infallibility. Pope Paul V used it and it has been vindicated. Not one pope dared use any abrogation when conceding to a heliocentric understanding of Scripture. If that happened the gates of hell would have prevailed.
The hierarchy in Rome, having modernised biblical exegesis and hermeneutics with their Galilean U-turn, went along with other theories that were making Genesis look like a compilation of fairy tales and myths.
History records the belief in that papal U-turn began a huge disbelief in creation by God. Heliocentrism was then turned into the Nebular theory, and there followed the big Bang and the evolution of everything, enough to convince billions of souls that the Bible is Myth and God with it.