Cassini, you seem to be defending the infallibility of the condemnation of the heliocentricism by attributing error to subsequent popes.  I find this approach unacceptable.

One of the main reasons I liked the John Daly paper so much is because it rejected this approach.  He accepted the legitimacy of all the papal teachings and actions and tried to reconcile them.

I think we agree that there are some apparent contradictions, but from there our positions diverge dramatically.  You treat them as real contradictions and our task as deciding which popes were right and which wrong.  I, like Daly, accept that all the popes involved are correct and look for ways to reconcile them.

I question how much communication is possible between us when we are coming at the problem with such different assumptions.  I don't even have a framework for judging popes to decide which one is right.

IMO they certainly considered it a matter of faith.  But the Holy Office by definition applies Church teaching to specific situations or circuмstances, and their decisions not inherently infallible or irreformable.

Cassini, you seem to be defending the infallibility of the condemnation of the heliocentricism by attributing error to subsequent popes.  I find this approach unacceptable.

One of the main reasons I liked the John Daly paper so much is because it rejected this approach.  He accepted the legitimacy of all the papal teachings and actions and tried to reconcile them.

I think we agree that there are some apparent contradictions, but from there our positions diverge dramatically.  You treat them as real contradictions and our task as deciding which popes were right and which wrong.  I, like Daly, accept that all the popes involved are correct and look for ways to reconcile them.

I question how much communication is possible between us when we are coming at the problem with such different assumptions.  I don't even have a framework for judging popes to decide which one is right.

The language of the 1633 condemnation suggests that it concerned a matter of faith but the later removal of the condemnation treats it as if it were a matter of discipline.  I liked how Daly systematically went through various ways to deal with this problem, considering their strengths and weaknesses.

My opening post in this thread was my own attempt to solve it.  Since it is a problem that even expert theologians disagree on, I am certainly not going to insist that my solution is the correct one.  But, like Daly, I am not prepared to entertain solutions that pit one pope against another and involve deciding which were right and which were wrong.

OK Jaynek, stick with your Daly thesis, I will stick with the truth based on Church teaching and the facts having studied the records of the Holy Office concerning the Galileo case from 1741-1835, facts Daly did not have access to. For others who may be open to the truth I will give it now, a truth that I have predicted will have the Jayneks of this world rejecting because they think no pope can do wrong. Since Vatican II we have a popes saying and doing things that previous popes have condemned, but when it comes to popes prior to them such a thing cannot happen. Accordingly they will look for the Daly's of this world (John Daly and Cardinal Daly) to find a way out for all, deny the irreformability (infallibility) of the 1616 decree and then their Galilean popes can be let off the heretical truth. John Daly as I said cannot have a heretic pope until Vatican II or his sedevacantism goes out the door. 

Since I was a child first hearing about the Galileo case I wondered how the Catholic Church I belonged to could get things so wrong. Searching through the many books, articles, Catholic encyclopaedias and years later the internet, I satisfied myself with the account made up by in the wake of the 1835 U-turn, that the 1616 condemnation of heliocentrism was not papal merely disciplinary, open to correction if proof for that solar system was found. 
Then along came a man called Paul Ellwanger who sent me evidence that the earth does not move. That falsifies the assertion that the 1616 decree was proven wrong. THUS the first step to the truth.

As a Catholic that wondered for so long how my divinely guided Church could get a decree defining formal heresy wrong, I had my answer, it was not wrong, I knew it, I knew it. My faith was endorced, God's Church does not get things wrong. I then discovered these proofs that supposedly falsified a Church teaching were actually accepted by some churchmen since 1741 and nearly all churchmen by 1820 under Pope Pius VII and in 1835 when Pope Gregory XVI took heliocentric books out of the Index and allowed the flock to believe heliocentrism.

So, the evidence concluded, the error did not occur in 1616 or 1633, but in 1741, 1820 and 1835. In other words popes did not uphold the DEFINITION of their predecessor based on an ILLUSION. They actually lost their faith in their own Church and succuмbed to the lie of human REASON. This I thought is WORSE than the supposed Church error of 1616 and 1633. Again I had to search for a Catholic explanation, or Catholicism was not as it teaches:


 I will continue in my next post.  

 

Before we continue with this synthesis of the Galileo case, never before disclosed, let me say that because we are Catholics we must stay with Church teaching at every step. In 1633 Pope urban VIII made it clear to the world that the 1616 decree was final and therefore irreversible because it was defined as such by Pope Paul V. Galileo, because he said he was not a heliocentrist could not be found guilty of formal heresy. But his book suggested he was, so the Pope had him found guilty of suspected heresy.

By 1741 astronomers and philosophers were accepting that Isaac Newton had provided proofs for heliocentrism and were saying Galileo was unjustly condemned. The crisis in the Church had begun.

‘‘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 had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Papal Commission, reported in the Osservatore Romano, November 4^th, 1992.

What the 1981-1992 papal commission did not tell the world was that in spite of some in the Holy Office looking for a repeal, using every 'proof' available to them, that imprimatur was given only after promises were made that the book would contain some sort of corrections in accordance with the Holy Office of 1616 and 1633. As it turned out these conditions met were a con-job but the Pope allowed the publication anyway. The retreat had started, but no official doctrine had been challenged. Note also it was the 1633 sentence against Galileo that, according to the commission, was supposedly not irreformable. It was the Galileo sentence they were investigating and never said a word about the 1616 decree that led to the sentence. In other words they could reform the sentence against Galileo but they had to do that WITHOUT REFERENCE to the 1616 decree. This distinction is interesting as we shall see.

In 1820, another challenge to the condemnation occurred. Here is how the commission described the outcome:

‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all heliocentric books].’ --- Galileo Commission, 1981-1992.

Yes, all heliopcentric books were removed from the Index. This of course gave the impression that the heresy in them was no longer a heresy. In 1966 Pope Paul VI got rid of the whole Index altogether. But every heresy in them remains heresy.

So, how did the Holy Office of 1820-35 deal with the dilemma of the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V. They conceded it was an irreversible papal decree. Now Jaynek, you prefer to go with John Daly, when even the Galileans of the 1820 Holy Office agreed it was not reformable, that is infallible?
Search as you like, but you will not find any pope deny the infallibility of the 1616 definition, only the Dalys of thisd world. This in spite of them believing the 1616 decree was proven wrong. The HOLY GHOST will not allow them deny what God through His pope has deemed His Word, His DEFINITIVE teaching.

Interesting isn't it. God would not allow them to deny the authority of the 1616 decree because it was an infallible decree. And as such could NEVER have been in error. And that was proven in time as Bellarmine predicted by science itself.

Which leaves us with the greatest Catholic mystery of all. How did they keep their infallible decree while at the same time allow heliocentrism to spread its virus throughout the Scriptures, the Catholic faith, and assist millions to lose all faith and become atheistic naturalists?

I'll answer that tomorrow if you want. Please excuse all the different sizes, something happens when I post the thread.