Every claim in the quoted sentences written by cassini is false.
With his persistent attempts to persuade the inculpably ignorant that nonpapal, reformable docuмents can be magically transformed, on his and his sources' say-so alone, into ex cathedra pronouncements, he sinfully and scandalously distorts both history and doctrine. Were Annibale Bugnini still alive, he might well be envious of cassini's energy and perseverance in distortion.
You do know Claudel that the Church has records of all the events of the Galileo case. Many scholars have researched them and brought them to the world's attention.
In 1867, the French scholar Henri de L’Epinois gained access to many of the docuмents and he published several of the most important ones in his Revue des Questions Historiques and again in his Les Piéces du Procés de Galilée. It was however, not until Pope Leo XIII finally opened the secret (private) Vatican’s archives and those of the Holy Office that the most comprehensive transcriptions of the affair were made. The first of these was by Antonio Favaro in his Works of Galileo Galilei (national edition 1890-1909 and 1929-1939). Further books edited by Domenico Berti (1876), the Protestant Karl von Gebler (1879), and others, all amounted to a vast compilation of facts pertaining to Galileo’s clash with the Church. Since then other docuмents pertaining to the Galileo case were unearthed, including records of the arguments made by the Holy Office when dropping the ban on heliocentric books from 1741 to 1835, details crucial to any accurate synthesis. The actual events of the Galileo case then, as distinct from their interpretation by many authors, and from the legends and myths, are now available to all.It is from these I obtained the information you Claudel now class as distortions.Perhaps you will be good enough to show us where you obtained your 'nonpapal and reformable' version of the 1616 decree is in these same records. How in God's name can anyone accuse the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 of doing what they did on the basis of a 'reformable' decree? Here is what Fr Roberts said you and others propose;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.
Here then Claudel is your opinion, rotten with accusations like above. Well the above is not the Catholicism I learned
Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 23016 times)