Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 14451 times)

klasG4e · « **Reply #75 on:** November 28, 2018, 12:11:50 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on November 27, 2018, 11:06:35 PM

.
In his typically smug subjective misery, claudel bemoans the paragraph you quoted from the Letter which Merry's post above (#68 ) quotes in full (in blue). If he's got his panties in a bunch over the "next paragraph," well, then here it is (following the blue one):
.
.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613, was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16^th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context, and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that "the Church of God had not his equal in learning."(6) Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc" were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…"shall not be moved forever and ever".

Many writers, scientists, and pseudo-theologians have spilt much ink trying to accommodate unverifiable, modern science (heliocentrism and evolution, in particular) with the Bible. Despite their mental gymnastics, their forced allegorical interpretations, their flaws in logic, and so on, not one has presented a viable argument. Belief in their reasoning not only requires blind faith, but leads one to conclude that God is a poor grammarian at best or a liar at worst. Some exegetes try to pass off all the inconsistencies by calling the language of the Scriptures poetic, figurative, or phenomenological; meaning that God in some cases did not really mean what He said. Aside from the inspired Word of God, we have the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and the Decrees(7), all geocentric. Today, after four hundred years, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is still geocentric: The earth is the center of the universe, and it has no motion.
.

Thanks much Neil. To be honest -- and slight embarrassment aside -- I had not even read Merry's post above and not for lack of interest, but for lack of time. Instead, I drew the exact quote which I put down, nothing more and nothing less from pp. 18-19 of Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church where that was the only part of the letter in question to be quoted and which I remembered well from previously having highlighted in my book.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #76 on:** November 28, 2018, 12:42:36 AM »

Quote from: klasG4e on November 28, 2018, 12:11:50 AM

Thanks much Neil. To be honest -- and slight embarrassment aside -- I had not even read Merry's post above and not for lack of interest, but for lack of time. Instead, I drew the exact quote which I put down, nothing more and nothing less from pp. 18-19 of Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church where that was the only part of the letter in question to be quoted and which I remembered well from previously having highlighted in my book.

.
Understandable. It's a pretty long post, took me two sessions to get through it, but in the end, it's well worth it.
.
The author makes many good points, but it seemed to me used too-vague language which is vulnerable to misinterpretation.
I wish I could have asked him some pointed questions before he issued his final copy.
James Russell Lowell might have agreed to make a few judicious changes.

cassini · « **Reply #77 on:** November 28, 2018, 10:44:52 AM »

Quote from: claudel on November 27, 2018, 02:09:37 PM

Quoting Klas: '
lest anyone out there still have doubts about whether or not geocentrism is a matter of faith, the words of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine … should wake them up from their slumber. …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish. You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.

Bellarmine was writing a private letter to a priest, Father Paolo Foscarini, in response to the priest's letter asking for the cardinal's opinion of his book. Only a fool or a knave would claim that a saintly prelate would try to preempt the Holy See's reserved authority by making infallible declarations of universal applicability in such a profane context, especially one where the prelate author's repeated resort to hypotheticals and conscious use of contrary-to-fact constructions would give any prudent man pause.

The true bottom line is this: Holy Mother Church is rightfully jealous of its prerogative to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. It has ever taken great pains to ensure that that prerogative is not toyed with or otherwise abused by the enemies of the Faith or, a fortiori, its soi-disant friends. The saddest and truest mark of the crisis reified by the Council is the near-complete disappearance of orthodox catechesis, in whose presence the pontificating delusions and outright falsehoods propagated by cassini and enthusiastically seconded by you and others would have been definitively silenced.

My goodness, what a dreadful accusation Claudel makes above about Klas and I? I think he accuses Klas of stating Bellarmine’s letter was the same as a papal decree. Cardinal Bellarmine at the time was Master of Controversial Questions at the time he wrote his 1615 Letter to Foscarini. It was his job to clarify the status of questions directed to the Inquisition, called the Holy Office. It is PERFECTLY clear he ADVISED Foscarini it was heresy (‘it would be just as heretical’). If this is not clear Claudekl, I suggest you go back to English class and learn how to read. A year later, when Pope Paul V asken the Holy Office to examine the matter, Cardinal Bellarmine and other consultants agreed it was formal heresy. The Pope agreed and by way of the 1616 decree made it a papal decree of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is also Church history that in 1633 Pope Urban VIII declared in Galileo’s trial that the decree was absolute, irreformable, the word for infallible in those days. Recorded in the Secret Archives also is that the Holy Office in 1820 admitted the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible. But along came the Claudels of this world, under the illusion that the fixed-sun of 1616 was proven false taking it upon themselves to redefine the authority of a decree already clarified by the Church.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.…Cardinal Poupard says the 1633 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.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4^th, 1992.

What Proofs, one could ask? Klas and I do nothing more but to defend the authority and teaching of our Church as decreed in 1616.

‘If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is an insult to God. Doubting His word, or believing with doubt and hesitation, is an insult to God, because it doubts His sacred Word. We must therefore believe without doubting, without hesitating…. On what does [the Protestant] believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgement. And what is that? A human opinion – human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say “I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text.” Therefore he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgement, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God. [Catholicism] has divine faith, and why? Because it says “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why? “Because the Catholic Church teaches this.” And why do you believe the Catholic Church? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophesy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.” That is strong language my dear people, but that is the language of St Peter, the head of the Apostles. But my dearly beloved Protestant friends do not be offended at me for saying that.”--- Fr Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890): The One True Church, available Online

But now back to your reference to cherry-picking from Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini: I know what you meant by ‘You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.’ You refer of course to third paragraph that says:

‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.’

When most in the Church and State were convinced the 1616 decree was proven false, the Claudels of this world needed excuses to show the 1616 decree was only provisional. The Holy Office never tried this ploy because god wouldfn’t let them. But outsiders like the Claudels were allowed to make up any story they liked to get the Church off the ‘infallible hook.’ One of their ploys was to quote Bellarmine’s words above to make it look like it says ‘If ever there was proof for heliocentrism, then…’ Here is John Paul II’s Commission on Galileo using the ploy:

‘Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in a letter of 12 April 1615 [wrote]: If the orbiting of the Earth were ever demonstrated to be certain, then theologians, according to him, would have to review their interpretations of the biblical passages apparently opposed to the new Copernican theories, so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions which had proved to be true: In fact Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the Earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were found.’

But it doesn’t say that in context. He was addressing the claim that Galileo had proof in the PRESENT TENSE, and never used the term in the future tense. How do I know, well as Claudel advised, stop cherry-picking and carry on with what Bellarmine said:

‘But as for myself, I do not believe that THERE IS any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. …. in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’

And no proof was ever found. But try telling that to the Claudels.

claudel · « **Reply #78 on:** November 28, 2018, 01:01:12 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on November 27, 2018, 11:12:30 PM

It's pathetic to see claudel making baseless insults at other good members which he thinks will offend them, which is his only motive.

All it accomplishes is making himself [sic] look like a puerile wimp. Substantiated by the fact that when he's called out on it, he runs away and hides for 6 months to a year, licking his wounded pride, like he's done in the past.

Oh dear.

Your name, Neil, functions here much like a perpetually blinking Caution sign at a railroad crossing on a rural road. Few hereabouts still make the mistake of looking to you for any information beyond Look Both Ways Carefully before Proceeding to Your Destination. Once that sign's useful but decidedly limited purpose has been served, chat with it would be frivolous at best, and debate or discussion would be an indicator of mental imbalance. One might as well comment to his car's rearview mirror on the structural ingenuity of Beethoven's opus 133 and expect a reasoned response.

Even so, I confess that empty frivolity tempts me to wonder whether I am alone in being a tad unsure as to what especially notable qualities differentiate a "puerile wimp" from the generic sort in that steel-trap mind of yours. For the nonce and in the interests of good-wimpship, I set aside the most obvious, most likely explanation.

klasG4e · « **Reply #79 on:** December 01, 2018, 08:21:25 PM »

The Angelus Press website ( https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science ) has added 2 more 5 star reviews of Father Robinson's book. One of them directly slanders/defames Robert Sungenis by name. The reviewer who goes by the name Jeanette Daher is apparently some sort of a proxy warrior for Fr. Robinson as can be seen on the following links:

1.) https://twitter.com/GuideRealist

2.) https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875

3.)

In addition to the above, Fr. Robinson has been allowed to promote his book in a seemingly unprecedented -- for any SSPX author -- manner as can be seen from the following links:

1.) His own website: https://therealistguide.com/

2.) His own blogsite: https://therealistguide.com/blog

3.) His own facebook: https://www.facebook.com/realistguide

4.) His own goodreads account: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson

5.) His own Quora account: https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410

6.) Possible Vimeo Account --

A copy of the review by Daher is seen below.

************************************************************************************************************************

A brilliant book for ALL Catholics, providing a balanced view to Science and Religion.
Jeanette Daher , Nov 2018

"The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" is a fantastic read, both thoughtful in its approach and style. The book is contemporary, as it tackles issues from creationist theories to Darwinism. It analyses famous atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. On the other side of the irrational spectrum, Fr Robinson tears apart self proclaimed apologist Robert Sungenis who misleads Catholics with his conspiracy theories and embarrasses the church, whereby belief is based on emotion. Robert attracts those individuals who do not think objectively, hence creating a "mob lynch" mentality. These idealists cannot take constructive criticism, they write reviews despite not reading the book and create havoc because their "leader" is questioned.
"Science was born of Christianity", the book shows how the church in the middle ages gave birth to modern science. He explains how St Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in this movement. The book shows that the realist mentality comes from a catholic perspective whereby both intellect and sense are used. He takes you on a fascinating journey through history to the present day, explaining the influences that shape our worldview.
Fr Robinson is a credible source, with the authority and expertise to inform us on what Catholics are bound to believe.
His blog has many articles explaining the position of the church. www.therealistguide.com
This book has deepened my faith and knowledge on what is catholic and what is not. !!

*************************************************************************************************************************

Stanley N · « **Reply #80 on:** December 02, 2018, 06:24:44 PM »

Quote from: cassini on November 28, 2018, 10:44:52 AM

When most in the Church and State were convinced the 1616 decree was proven false, the Claudels of this world needed excuses to show the 1616 decree was only provisional. The Holy Office never tried this ploy because god wouldfn’t let them. But outsiders like the Claudels were allowed to make up any story they liked to get the Church off the ‘infallible hook.’ One of their ploys was to quote Bellarmine’s words above to make it look like it says ‘If ever there was proof for heliocentrism, then…’

Or, perhaps, the 1616 decree was just not infallible?

claudel · « **Reply #81 on:** December 03, 2018, 12:05:28 AM »

Quote from: cassini on November 28, 2018, 10:44:52 AM

… A year later, when Pope Paul V asken [sic] the Holy Office to examine the matter, Cardinal Bellarmine and other consultants agreed it was formal heresy. The Pope agreed and by way of the 1616 decree made it a papal decree of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is also Church history that in 1633 Pope Urban VIII declared in Galileo’s trial that the decree was absolute, irreformable, the word for infallible in those days. …

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.

cassini · « **Reply #82 on:** December 03, 2018, 07:27:26 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 02, 2018, 06:24:44 PM

Or, perhaps, the 1616 decree was just not infallible?

And who desides that Stanley, you. For me it is the Church and they said it was.

cassini · « **Reply #83 on:** December 03, 2018, 07:56:20 AM »

Quote from: claudel on December 03, 2018, 12:05:28 AM

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

Stanley N · « **Reply #84 on:** December 03, 2018, 08:31:50 AM »

Quote from: cassini on December 03, 2018, 07:27:26 AM

And who desides that Stanley, you. For me it is the Church and they said it was.

You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.

Stanley N · « **Reply #85 on:** December 03, 2018, 10:36:49 AM »

Quote from: cassini on December 03, 2018, 07:56:20 AM

Here is what Fr Roberts said you and others propose;
...

Here then Claudel is your opinion, rotten with accusations like above. Well the above is not the Catholicism I learned

My understanding is that you consider the 1616 decision infallible, and yet a decision in 1820/22 stated there were no obstacles for Catholics holding what you believe was infallibly defined as heresy.

So don't you hold much the same as that list?

In particular, your geocentrist view appears to agree with #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8, and a central part of #2, that a decree confirmed by the Pope may "compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church's keeping."

klasG4e · « **Reply #86 on:** December 03, 2018, 10:56:13 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 03, 2018, 08:31:50 AM

You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.

If Sungenis were to respond here he might well say what he said in his very measured yet at the same time devastating critique of Fr. Robinson's book on pp. 230-231 of his own book, Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church: "Some [such as Stan? :)] try to get around the history by claiming the popes never signed the decrees, even though they may have signed the Vatican's dissemination of the decision to the rest of Europe, and therefore the decree is not infallible. But there are several problems with this attempted escape.

First, I am not aware of any stipulation in canonical law that a pope had to sign a decree. Although a signature surely made clear the pope's intention and directive, his verbal confirmation was never said to be without the same authority, especially since the rules of papal infallibility were not yet formulated; and even when they were formulated in 1870 at Vatican I, it did not say that the pope's signature was required.

Second, even if the geocentric doctrine was not given on the level of infallibility (and only the Church herself can determine whether it is, but has never done so), this does not make the doctrine an error, since many papal decrees were given on lower levels of canonical authority and, and according to Pius XII's decree and its confirmation at Vatican II in both Lumen Gentium and Humani Generis in 1950, we are to assent to them and hold them as doctrine.

Today, however, Catholics [including Stan? :)] who desire to believe in heliocentrism wish the geocentric doctrines were a mistake so they can then claim they don't need to follow the doctrine, such as Fr. Robinson. But they have no right to do so, even if they claim science proves the decrees against Galileo were a mistake, for only the Church can determine fit the science has reached the needed level of proof, and She has never done so."

OK, Stan go to it!

cassini · « **Reply #87 on:** December 03, 2018, 01:24:36 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 03, 2018, 08:31:50 AM

You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.

I am tired showing the evidence that the Church ruled the 1616 decree irreformable so for the last time here they are again. The first record of this was at Galileo's trial.

The Inquisition’s 1633 Sentence:

‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
“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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1820, when Settele was looking for an imprimatur for his book, fr Anfossi refused to give it one based on the fact that the 1616 was not reformable. Here is what Fr Olivieri, head man in the Holy Office at the time, had to say as recorded from the Docuмents of 1820, recently released and reproduced in Maurice A Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved:

Olivieri then, Commissary General of the Inquisition, does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving Earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite is the case in fact; given one of those decrees found heliocentrism formal heresy, he thereby confirms that the 1616 decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’ Now a papal decree that is unrevisable is an infallible decree.

cassini · « **Reply #88 on:** December 03, 2018, 04:11:47 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 03, 2018, 10:36:49 AM

My understanding is that you consider the 1616 decision infallible, and yet a decision in 1820/22 stated there were no obstacles for Catholics holding what you believe was infallibly defined as heresy.

So don't you hold much the same as that list?

In particular, your geocentrist view appears to agree with #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8, and a central part of #2, that a decree confirmed by the Pope may "compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church's keeping."

Yes Stanley, well spotted, you are perfectly correct about the seeming contradictions in Fr Roberts eight points. But upon study we find the 1820-35 decrees spoke not of any doctrinal contradiction but merely concerned the publication and reading of non heretical heliocentric books, something allowed in 1616 so as not to stop the measurements of astronomy..

In 1820 there were two papal decrees:
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

Note the heliocentrism allowed in the first decree was one that ' espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions and the second decree ' according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820. Now to understand this you must know the circuмstances of the 1757 index concession and what Olivieri told the pope;

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

This advice to the pope about the irreformable 1616 decree was nonsense, invented by Olivieri as a way to have his irreversible decree and his 'now proven' heliocentrism. The two decrees above allowed such non-heretical books on astronomy to be published and read. Neither dared contradict or ignore the 1616 decree.

klasG4e · « **Reply #89 on:** December 03, 2018, 08:29:18 PM »

Stan, can you help us untangle/unpack/understand the following endorsement by Professor Jakub Taylor of Fr. Robinson's book given on Fr. Robinson's website? See https://therealistguide.com/endorsements.

The endorsement -- don't you wish you had such a clear talking professor in college -- reads as follows:

Dr. Jakub Taylor

It is not an easy task to write a short endorsement of Fr. Robinson’s book, even if - in itself – the book is not a long opus. The difficulty lies in fear which I experience together with many commentators of the works of St. Thomas: it lies in a justified anxiety that the comment will become much less comprehensible in relation to the scrutinized original. But if, despite the lack of skill, I am to fulfill my task, I should follow a simple pattern of judgment and try to respond to two fundamental questions: does the author recognize the importance of a problem he is dealing with, and does he presents an adequate remedy. In my opinion, the answers to both of these questions appear to be positive. Let me try to explain why.

Chesterton used to mock modern men by saying that “like other barbarians, they really believe the mirror”; and therefore break it, hurting themselves and others in the process. Men have not changed from the time of Chesterton, it seems that human condition reached the bottom of the gnoseological abyss: most of us do believe that the reflections of the ‘mirrors’ represent the essence of being.

Fr. Robinson would agree with this assessment, as he considers the idealistic epistemology the source of most (if not all) contemporary problems, both within the parallel and vertical dimension of human reality. A remedy he proposes is simple: return to the realist cognition and focusing upon causa finita argumentation. Pointing out these two factors proves that author possesses a good intuition and perceptive abilities, features not shared by many. Why is focusing upon modus quo rather than modus quod so important? The way we approach reality is quintessential, as it determines our every-day praxis.
This fact is nicely put into words by a Polish contemporary poet, J.M. Rymkiewicz. In 2011, he expressed his frustration about the ongoing events by assessing the problem of the destruction of human identity, a disregard towards tradition, and the accomplishments of the past, while at the same time exaggerated, beautified ‘non-reality’ was being imposed by ‘deceivers and villains’. “Nothing is true anymore” - he writes emotively – “we have fiduciary economy, irrelevant problems presented to us as relevant, fictitious state agencies administered by a fictitious government… Even unimportant details of this ‘non-reality’ are nothing but the shards of thoughts of the un-real authorities and un-real literati, who preach to us that this ‘non-reality’ is indeed the essence of what is”.

Polish poets are not philosophers or scholars when it comes to guarding their tongues, but from time to time they manage to name the problem more accurately than others. Rymkiewicz called this phenomenon a “Great [Cognitive] Darkening”, which is a term semantically close to what Gordon Wood called an ‘Epistemological Revolution’.

Fr. Robinson, following the great tradition of Christian Aristotelianism and thoughts of the erudite English-speaking apologists, managed to describe the very same problem taking the philosophical deductive approach. Comparing to either Rymkiewicz or Wood he did it in much more coherent and compact fashion. Not many thinkers today are capable of such a feat, as most of them shiver in fear at being considered ‘judgmental’ or they pursue the feeling of safety within the ontological realm of ‘concepts’, doing anything to avoid suspicion of being called ‘axiom-obsessed supporters of foundationalism’. Fr. Robinson knows that talking about the absoluteness of truth is not very pleasant to a modern scholar, especially when it challenges the established lie (often sugar-coated by the term ‘paradigm’), but it is – de facto – a very scholarly thing to do. In my opinion, the author of the “Guide” deserves praise for this attempt, as well as for his attachment to the aleithia-oriented philosophical tradition. The fact that he was capable to interweave his very specific (I dare even say ‘sarcastic’) sense of humor within the precise philosophical narration is even more praiseworthy and should be highly regarded by the readers.

If I were to point out the feature of the book that I regarded most highly it would be the following: within the Anglo-Saxon worldview, any epistemological discourse will often end up facing the alleged dichotomy between the realm of religion and the realm of science. It is an obvious categorical shift problem intrinsically affiliated with the Euler diagram. I was very happy to find this issue addressed in the book. I had an impression, that Fr. Robinson, unlike many of his contemporaries, was quite successful in explaining this issue.

Even if Fr. Robinson’s critique of contemporary scholarship might appear to be too harsh, one might at least hope that it will lead scientists to avoid advocacy research, and build their theorems upon the realistic basis or, at least, to encroach the realm of philosophy or theology only after an adequate theoretical preparation. It might be nothing but an expression of my enormous naivete, but I dare to assume that if this guide is to be followed by other works of this kind, there is a chance of effective propagation of realistic thinking not only among the amateur philosophers, but even among us, professional concept-making academicians. A daring think to hope indeed! And I thank Fr. Robinson for giving me this hope by writing his extraordinary book.

Jakub Taylor is a research professor in the Academy of East Asian Studies at Sungkyunkwan University, in Seoul, South Korea. [Would it be uncharitable to hope that he remain there?]

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 14451 times)

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

claudel

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Stanley N

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

claudel

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Stanley N

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Stanley N

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book