CathInfo.com

Happenby:

Have you ever read Pascendi? That's St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism. If not, please stop talking about what you don't understand.
Apollo (and anyone else on CI) is not guilty of Modernism. You haven't studied it, so what would you know?

You just gave the definition of "modernism" with a lowercase "m", as it applies to artistic and cultural endeavors. That isn't the same thing as Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which is like acid to the Catholic Faith, caused the Crisis in the Church, and caused Vatican II to be a disaster.

I'd love to hear you define Modernism in your own words, in particular how it caused the Crisis in the Church. I'd alternate between groaning and laughing.

Spend more time reading and learning and less time trying to be a teacher of men.

Start with the Epistles of St. Paul, particularly the part where he speaks to women.

I've read Pascendi. You've made it clear this is no place to define Modernism in my own words.

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/
You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?  
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

OK Apollo, at last you have played the CARD that FRIGHTENS EVERY CATHOLIC FROM FINDING THE TRUTH OF THE GALILEO AFFAIR:

'So the Church says that heresy can be printed?'

SEE THIS, END OF STORY. Either you Catholics accept heliocentrism or you accuse the Church of promoting heresy.
Now correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't it the Church, by way of Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII who decreed heliocentrism was heresy?

A couple of things before we get to the UNCOMFORTABLE truth, things you will not find in that website you keep asking posters to read. At Vatican I the Council decreed that not even Peter can change what a PREVIOUS PETER has condemned.
Righ, next, on what GROUNDS did the Holy Office (note I did not say the Church) decide to give IMPRIMATURS for heliocentric books? Well here they are, given to the world by the 1981-1992 papal commission on Galileo.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.….. This (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. {Note it is the 1633 decree mentioned, not the 1616 decree tghat was papal and untouchable.]



Right, as we see the LIE that heliocentrism was proven, and thus geocentrism was WRONG as a biblical meaning IS the reason given - even in 1992, when the DOGS in the street knew there was no such proofs. Did none of them know Einstein admitteed this to science in 1905.

So, fr Benedetto Olivieri, head of the Holy Office, based on his belief that heliocentrism was proven, submitted a huge defence of heliocentrism for Pope Pius VII when considering if they should allow a heliocentric book to be printed. There was however one Fr Anfossi who argued that there was no proof and that the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) so could not be challenged. But the WORLDVIEW that heliocentrism was proven won the argument. Neverthe less, Anfossi insisted the 1616 decree was Church teaching and could not be overturned.

Olivieri AGREED the 1616 decree was papal and not-reversible. So how did he/they get the pope to agree their heliocentric books were not heretical?

Well, here is how they did it, Olivieri said the 1616 heliocentrism was a VIOLENT one and therefore was rightfully against philosophy and Scripture, but the heliocentrism OF MODERN ASTRONOMERS was not violent so was not the HERESY condemned in 1616. Now this was absolute nonsense and had NOTHING to do with the decree of heresy of 1616. What was defined as heresy in 1616 was that the sun is fixed heliocentrism, which had nothing to do with a violent Earth. And given the heliocentrism of modern astronomers APPROVED of by Pope Pius VII contained the heretical fixed sun, one cannot deny the heliocentric books allowed in 1820 still contained the heresy.

And surely, a papal approval of a heliocentric book that still contained a heresy condemned by his predecessors in 1616 and 1633, surely INFERRED that Catholics could accept heliocentrism as a physical reality and as a biblical interpretation.

Fr Anfossi and a few colleagues of the 1820 Holy Office who argued Pope Paul V could not have erred because of God's guidance,, have since been vindicated by science. But the abuse they got in 1820 for objecting to heretical heliocentrism was unbelievable.

As one can see, this has to be the greatest scandal in all of the Church's history, one that Catholicism can not ignore for much longer.

Now Apollo, figure a way out of that history.