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.
4. Don't quite know what the point or question you are saying here.
5. The record shows the Holy Office of 1820 based its decree on a scientific hoax. It said absolutely nothing about biblical interpretation although it inferred by way of 'obstacles' that it could have meant doctrinal obstacles but then again it could have meant scientific obstacles.
There are two considerations to be addressed in the light of the facts. The Church conceded the 1616 decree was irreversible. It made no such claim that the 1820 decree was an infallible decree. As Catholics we can only save the dogma of infallibility if the 1820 one is not infallible.
Here is the dilemma to be faced:
‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the Galileo case seems to me to teach in direct opposition to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only scientifically false, but theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, decisions that are false and perilous to the faith.3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. [Condemned by Pius IX in his Syllabus]4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.Now while Fr Roberts wrote these consequences of the 1616 decree under the impression that heliocentrism was proven, we now must apply the relevant parts of the above (no 1) to that 1820 decree. Either way the consequences are very serious for the Church. And that is why there is need for the Church to clarify the situation in the wake of that infamous U-turn.
Topic: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II (Read 6431 times)