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 [3]

Author Topic: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II  (Read 3729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • Reputation: +1344/-235
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2018, 07:31:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 18, 2018, 02:09:25 PM

    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.)

    1.)  Are you implying that the basis of the Fathers' quotes I put up are out of sync with the Sacred Scriptures?  That they are in opposition to the Sacred Scriptures?  If so please be so kind as to explain.

    2.)  Would I be wrong in saying that you appear absolutely dead set against geocentrism?  May I ask if you believe that geocentrism is somehow an inherently anti-Scriptural and thus anti-Catholic concept/belief?  I ask these questions because you appear (to me, anyway) to be so strenuously anti-geocentric in your assertions on CathInfo.

    3.)  Also, if I may: Are you inclined to believe that the Big Bang is true and if so how you reconcile (if indeed you do) the Big Bang with the time honored traditional exegesis of the Book of Genesis?

    4.)  Finally -- on a different thread on CathInfo you stated in regards to a Roman Catholic priest (who I hold no particular brief for): "He's a geocentrist. That directly undermines his credibility on Scripture, papal teaching about Scripture, and the weight of various papal acts, and indirectly on other theological matters." Would you be so kind as to elaborate on this assertion in such a way as to provide a substantial rationale for same?  Thanks in advance for your anticipated response.
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #31 on: November 19, 2018, 05:16:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 18, 2018, 04:37:13 PM
    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)


    First no 1:

    In the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.
    The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known as the Index, was finally established in 1572. It was the section placed by Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the Council of Trent. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers.

         Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority.

    ‘I found it laid down by such distinguished repre­sentatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’ --- Fr W. Roberts.

    For the life of me I cannot understand the term 'disciplinary' when it comes to the Galileo case. Every decree of the Church is 'disciplinary,' it prevents people from breaking the rules of the Church. The Index is part of the Inquisition or Holy Office and in this case found a fixed-sun reading of Scripture formal heresy as the reason for banning the helio books. To try to separate the two is the result of that lorryload of excuses conjured up when they all thought the 1616 decree was found to be wrong by science.
    Finally we have the word of Cardinal Bellarmine who wrote the following for Galileo who pretended he never held a helio reading of the Bible. This came two months after the March decree.

    ‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus… is contrary to Scripture. 26th day of May 1616.

    Note Bellarmine had no problem with the pope issuing his decree through the Index.

     
     
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #32 on: November 19, 2018, 06:05:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: klasG4e on November 18, 2018, 07:31:30 PM
    2.)  Would I be wrong in saying that you appear absolutely dead set against geocentrism?  May I ask if you believe that geocentrism is somehow an inherently anti-Scriptural and thus anti-Catholic concept/belief?  I ask these questions because you appear (to me, anyway) to be so strenuously anti-geocentric in your assertions on CathInfo.
    While not directed at me I would like to comment here.

    As I said before, I was educated to believe in heliocentrism and evolution. An American Catholic gave me a book on the problems with evolution to study many years ago and It took me less than half an hour to see it was the most absurd nonsense, an intellectual insult as a friend called it. How absurd can the evolution of eyesight be? Nothing works in bits, it needs all together to survive. Genesis said God created all together at once or over six days. That is the only way it could be according to human reason. I felt very angry with myself for believing in such nonsense. Another Americal, Paul Ellwanger then told me if I thought evolution was an absurd theory, go study the 'science' that proved the Earth goes around the sun. You must be joking, I said. I did, and I now know no such proof exists. Then I began to study the circuмstances of the Galileo case where the Church ruled it heresy because it contradicted the Bible and the understanding of the Bible by all the Fathers. As a Catholic I found no fault in this.
    In my research I found Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ up to its knees in proclaiming heliocentrism was proven. I found they rejoiced in 'proving the church wrong.' I then read the details of that Church U-turn based on the opinion of all the world's famous philosophers. I couldn't believe such as contradiction could happen within the Catholic Church. Then came Vatican II. That really tested the faith of billions, for who ever thought that could happen within the Church?
    My research has given me the greatest love for God through His creation that I never experienced before. I hear how others, even saints loved God, but the love of God 'through the things that he made' had been lost to man, even Catholics. When I see the perfectiion of the Earth, flora and fauna, all perfect, no half evolved things, I see the perfection of God. I just love it.
    Since God revealed to me his geocentric universe I see it as  proof of God's onmipotence. In a geocentric universe, with the number of stars compared to the grains of sand on Earth, He demonstrated He is beyond Human reasoning for such numbers must go out beyond distances we cannot imagine. When He causes them all to rotate together once a day he again shows us his omnipotence. This also shows us thery are not infinite, as infinity cannot turn every 24 hours. That is proof against the heresy of infinity outside God. A geocentric universe also demonstrates one time frame, all turning together, in keeping with His Creation as told in Genesis.
    That is now part of my Catholic faith, why I try to show it to others. Alas, the Devil has got hold of human minds and few find the grace to reject what amounts to intellectual pride, a pride I understand for I had it once thinking I knew how the universe worked. There is thank God, no such pride in geocentrism, for to profess it brings ridicule as I have experienced so often.

    I will get back to Stanley later.
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #33 on: November 19, 2018, 02:32:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 18, 2018, 04:37:13 PM
    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.

    Ah, the old 'hypothesis' argument, first proposed by Descartes, repeated by Fr Fabri, regurgitated by Adrien Auzout.

    The only ‘hypothesis’ permitted by the Church was in accordance with that outlined by Osiander in the preface of Copernicus’s book On the revolutions.

    ‘To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,’
    ‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up many – nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth, but only in order that they may provide a correct basis for calculation.… Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’

    It is clear from this preface, no matter who wrote it, wherein its heliocentrism is called a ‘hypothesis,’ it was presented as a tool for astronomical calculation only and not as a truth or a potential truth awaiting someone to prove it true or not. This is the hypothesis that the Church allowed, but as with everything else to do with that U-turn, they presented it as a hypothesis awaiting to be proven or not. Just another cheating ploy to get out of their heliocentric mission.
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #34 on: November 19, 2018, 02:40:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 18, 2018, 04:37:13 PM
    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.

    It was taken off the Index because the pope was told heliocentrism was a fact of science. This was an illusion to say the least.
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #35 on: November 19, 2018, 03:45:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 18, 2018, 04:37:13 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #36 on: November 25, 2018, 08:32:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on November 19, 2018, 05:16:10 AM
    Note Bellarmine had no problem with the pope issuing his decree through the Index.
    Of course the Index issues statements. However, your assertion is that it issued a statement of doctrine binding de fide on all Catholics. Your post doesn't show that. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.

    Compare, for example, the decisions of the pontifical biblical commission, which were approved by the Pope in forma specifica, but were not considered ex cathedra. They required "religious assent", but not the assent of faith.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #37 on: November 25, 2018, 08:36:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on November 19, 2018, 03:45:03 PM
    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.
    Who is this Fr. Roberts?
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3287
    • Reputation: +2068/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #38 on: November 26, 2018, 01:11:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on November 25, 2018, 08:36:41 PM
    Who is this Fr. Roberts?

    Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them. Google it and read. 
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #39 on: November 26, 2018, 01:30:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on November 26, 2018, 01:11:34 PM
    Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them. Google it and read.
    http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #40 on: December 02, 2018, 07:03:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: klasG4e on November 26, 2018, 01:30:55 PM
    http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf
    That didn't really answer my question - who is this Fr. Roberts? - unless all you know about him is that he is the author of that piece.
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #41 on: December 03, 2018, 12:44:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on December 02, 2018, 07:03:46 PM
    That didn't really answer my question - who is this Fr. Roberts? - unless all you know about him is that he is the author of that piece.

    Why do you want to know more than is presented about him in the linked pdf?  Are you having any sort of a problem with the priest (the "messenger"), the message, or both?
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #42 on: December 05, 2018, 12:08:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: klasG4e on December 03, 2018, 12:44:54 PM
    Why do you want to know more than is presented about him in the linked pdf?  Are you having any sort of a problem with the priest (the "messenger"), the message, or both?
    Do you agree with everything he has written? If not, what?
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX, Fr Robinson and heretical interpretations of Scripture II
    « Reply #43 on: December 05, 2018, 12:24:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on December 05, 2018, 12:08:33 PM
    Do you agree with everything he has written? If not, what?
    Why can't you just answer my questions first?  After all, I asked them first!
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3]
    « previous next »