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 9

Author Topic: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II  (Read 6427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2018, 11:07:31 PM »

Thank you for providing what I have to assume is what you consider the best quotes you can find. 
I see a few Fathers that mention geocentrism, but of those only 1 that says it is doctrine.
So the Fathers do not teach geocentrism as doctrine.
Logged

Offline klasG4e

Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2018, 11:03:06 AM »
Quote from: Stanley N on November 17, 2018, 11:07:31 PM
Thank you for providing what I have to assume is what you consider the best quotes you can find.
I see a few Fathers that mention geocentrism, but of those only 1 that says it is doctrine.
So the Fathers do not teach geocentrism as doctrine.

A person who indoctrinates/teaches  including a Father of the Church no more usually asserts that he is indoctrinating/teaching than the recipient asserts that he is being indoctrinated.  It just happens.  They just do it!
Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2018, 02:09:25 PM »
Quote from: klasG4e on November 18, 2018, 11:03:06 AM
A person who indoctrinates/teaches  including a Father of the Church no more usually asserts that he is indoctrinating/teaching than the recipient asserts that he is being indoctrinated.  It just happens.  They just do it!
If someone says something like "As a plant is nourished by both water and the sun, so a Christian must be nourished by both spiritual reading and prayer", he may be teaching ("indoctrinating"), but in so doing he is presuming "a plant is nourished by water and the sun" is known from natural reason, not asserting that "a plant is nourished by water and the sun" is revealed doctrine!

As Providentissumus Deus says, we must identify teachings of doctrine: "the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

That most of the fathers do not assert geocentrism as revealed doctrine is very clear from your quotes. (That sort of attempt at prooftexts is characteristically Protestant, an indication of the non-Catholic mentality permeating geocentrism today.)
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2018, 03:38:55 PM »
Quote from: Stanley N on November 17, 2018, 08:30:39 PM
There are several explanations. A normal, non-geocentrist Catholic has any number of approaches to understand the history.

However, if you claim the 1820 statement is just about books, so that you may dismiss it, then you must also dismiss your beloved 1616 statement of the Index. The Index is about books.

And if behind the scenes actions undermine the 1820 statement, then you must also hold they undermine the 1616 statement.

A few others:
1. Is the Index a competent authority for doctrine? You have to say it is.
2. Is the 1616 decision more than disciplinary? You have to say it is more.
3. Is the 1616 decision still in force? You have to say it is.
4. Does the 1616 decision apply to modern cosmology? You have to say it does.
5. Is the 1820 statement not binding? You have to say it isn't.

These are just 5 points which you must hold in order to maintain geocentrism as a doctrine. If you fail to defend any one of these, your position collapses.

In general, you also need to hold that the Catholic Church can state that "no obstacles exist" for Catholics to hold heresy for 200 years - or more if we look at events from the 1700s. And no pope during that time, not even St. Pius X, did anything about it.

Excellent post Stanley, for you have summarised a contradiction that has very serious consequences for our understanding of the Catholic faith and papal infallibility.

In his book, Fr W.W. Roberts makes the greatest case for the infallibility of the 1616 decree. He wrote his book in 1870 and added further evidence for infallibility in 1885. What he said in his book was that 'the judgement of Rome far outweighs the judgement of individual theologians.' The first judgement of the 1616 decree came from Pope Urban III when at Galileo's trial he presided over Galileo's sentence like so:

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.

Fr Roberts, who was a convinced heliocentrist, as all were from 1835, believing it was proven by science, rejected the Vatican I dogma of infallibility because of his conviction that it was infallible and that the dogma at Vatican I confirmed it was infallible. What he did not have was access to the docuмents of 1820 when the Holy Office, all under the same belief that heliocentrism was proven, so he did not refer to it in any way. But as it turned out The Holy Office in 1820 acknowledged the 1616 decree was non-reformable. So, twice Rome confirmed the 1616 decree was absolute. Now in any sense of the word that had to mean infallible, unless you can have an irreformable decree that is not infallible?

1. The Index in 1616 was the vehicle Pope Paul V used to make the heresy known to all. Vatican I had allowed the means of communication.
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

2. Of course it was more than a disciplinary decree. That is like asking someone if Pope Urban VIII got it all wrong when finding Galileo guilty of suspicion of heresy. Heresy is not a tempory thing, heresy one day, not heresy another. Of course it was absolute as Pope Urban VIII ruled.  

3. Yes, it was never abrogated, nor challenged by Rome, not even in 1820.

4. Ah, here we have a problem. You cannot make cosmology formal heresy, that is absurd. What was found formal heresy was to contradict the Scriptures, God's words. It matters not what the subject matter is. Bellarmine said:
'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.’
Now if someone insists that heliocentrism is a truth, they in effect say the Bible got it wrong. that is how heliocentrism is heresy.

5. 'For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine.' (Vatican I.) With the lot of them believing heliocentrism was proven, Olivieri conjured up a solution to get over the infallible hurdle and have the now proven heliocentrism. He gave this to Pope Pius VII who then decreed this new heliocentrism was not against the Faith.

As I said Stanley, here is a dilemma the Church doesn't need. Pope Gregory XIV couldn't cope with this contradiction so 'made no comment' when he got rid of the four books from the Index.

Infallibility means truth. Now that it is known that the 1616 decree has never been falsified, its infallibility has not been proven wrong. The decree by Pope Pius VII is therefore a new doctrine and has no backing of the Holy Spirit so cannot be called infallible.

As for the popes after that, like Pius X, well the heliocentric lie fooled 'even the elect' as the Bible warned. I have many times wondered why the Church never clarified the situation after 1835 over the last century but I think we now know. Please excuse the different sizes, it happens any time you post something, you just dont know what size it will come out.





Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2018, 04:37:13 PM »
Quote from: cassini on November 18, 2018, 03:38:55 PM
1. The Index in 1616 was the vehicle Pope Paul V used to make the heresy known to all.
If you say that, then why not: the 1835 Index was the vehicle the Pope used to make the non-heresy known to all?

Each of the points I listed above you must hold, but there are good reasons for the opposite.

1. The Congregation of the Index seems to me a disciplinary body, and not a competent body for doctrinal statements (which would be the Holy Office)

2. Even if the Congregation were a doctrinal body, the 1616 statement looks disciplinary. And furthermore, it looks specific to Galileo's books and a couple others. The resulting index required Galileo's books to be published with corrections. All he had to do was state things as a hypothesis rather than certain. If this was truly doctrinal, then the Church (in 1616!) allowed people to state heresy as a hypthesis, as long as they didn't assert the heresy was certainly true. That's absurd. The obvious conclusion is that it wasn't a doctrinal decision at all, but a prudential one.

3. Even if it were in force, it would, strictly speaking, only require the corrections for Galileo. Since Galileo's books went off the Index entirely, it would seem it was, in fact, reversed.

4. Even IF it were granted that the Index can issue doctrine, and even IF the 1616 statement was in fact doctrinal, and even IF it applies to more than Galileo and his books, and even IF it is still in force, the traditional way of interpreting penalties is strict interpretation. Since the 1616 statement refers to the "doctrine" (singular, not plural) including BOTH the sun moves and the earth does not, a cosmology which holds the earth moves doesn't fall under that penalty. (That's in addition to the "not violent" part you mentioned regarding "as affirmed today").

5. The 1820 statement explicitly says there is no obstacle for Catholics to hold "the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today". Since your entire argument is "authority", you have to deal with this "authority". You're basically arguing the Church failed in its teaching since at least 1820, that is, the gates of Hell prevailed against the see of Peter. That seems a difficult position to take for a Catholic.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
« previous next »