-
During my break, I had the opportunity to do some research about Galileo and reached some conclusions. This is what I came up with:
We often discuss matters of faith and morals in which the Church teachings are infallible and unchanging. For example, the Eucharist will always be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Abortion will always be intrinsically evil. But teachings pertaining to natural science don’t work this way. They can be changed when scientific knowledge changes.
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote about this specifically in relation to heliocentrism (reference (http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html)) and later popes wrote of the general principle.
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
Galileo had not made a true demonstration that the earth circles the sun. His model left certain observations unexplained and he made assertions that everyone today, geocentrist and heliocentrist alike, would reject. For example, he said that tides were caused by the motion of the earth. Whatever one thinks of subsequent developments in science, at that time, he had not established that his model was the best.
In spite of this, he was pressuring the Church to reinterpret Scripture to support his theory and was even circulating his own ideas about how Scripture ought to be understood. He was usurping the authority of the Church as the sole interpreter of Scripture. And he was doing so at a period of history in which people were having wars over questions of this authority.
What he ought to have done was to present his ideas as a hypothetical model and allowed time for further study and development. It was up to the Church to decide when the science in support of it was strong enough to merit a reconsideration of Scripture passages that seemed to support geocentrism.
This did eventually happen and Pope Pius VII officially indicated the acceptablilty of heliocentrism in 1820 in this decree (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and 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 Most 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 [of Copernicus], 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.
It should be obvious from this that the earlier condemnation of heliocentrism was not a timeless teaching but one contingent on circuмstances which later changed. The next edition of the Index published after this decree, in 1835, no longer contained any of the previously prohibited books on heliocentrism.
Whatever conclusions one draws about the science in support of these models, there are no grounds for seeing heliocentrism as a condemned view forbidden to Catholics or for claiming geocentrism as the only permissible Catholic view.
-
Helio & Geo-centrism are Both wrong as S & E have both been shown by science to be in 2 types of motion--- that is LATERAL as well as rotation.... :cheers:
-
As I showed, Catholics are free to accept the modern understanding of heliocentrism. We are not required to interpret literally Scriptures that appear to support geocentrism. On the contrary, Pope Leo XIII, wrote in Providentisssimus Deus
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
There is, however, an idea that has been frequently linked to heliocentrism that Catholics ought to reject and refute. We can call this "the Galileo myth." Many people portray Galileo as a brave champion of truth and reason who proved that the earth circled the sun and was persecuted for this by an ignorant and superstitious Church. This narrative and its variations are falsehoods, created as anti-Catholic propaganda. We can add Pope John Paul II's apology to Galileo to the list of JPII's problematic actions, since it served to reinforce this myth.
Many of the negative comments regarding heliocentrism that appear on this forum, while not applicable to heliocentrism in itself, can be truly said of this Galileo myth. It is a false and evil idea that deserves condemnation.
-
As I showed, Catholics are free to accept the modern understanding of heliocentrism. We are not required to interpret literally Scriptures that appear to support geocentrism. On the contrary, Pope Leo XIII, wrote in Providentisssimus Deus
There is, however, an idea that has been frequently linked to heliocentrism that Catholics ought to reject and refute. We can call this "the Galileo myth." Many people portray Galileo as a brave champion of truth and reason who proved that the earth circled the sun and was persecuted for this by an ignorant and superstitious Church. This narrative and its variations are falsehoods, created as anti-Catholic propaganda. We can add Pope John Paul II's apology to Galileo to the list of JPII's problematic actions, since it served to reinforce this myth.
Many of the negative comments regarding heliocentrism that appear on this forum, while not applicable to heliocentrism in itself, can be truly said of this Galileo myth. It is a false and evil idea that deserves condemnation.
CATHOLOICS' ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURES THROUGH FREEMASONS BY BELIEVING THEIR GLOBE EARTH LIES. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED! :really-mad2: :fryingpan:
-
I don't get it, are you saying that Pope Leo XIII was a Freemason?
Ironically enough, Pope Leo XIII probably wrote more than any other pope condemning Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
This is true, but I'm not sure what he meant. I was legitimately asking what he meant because it sounded like he was saying that Pope Leo was a freemason.
Yes, it sounded that way to me too, but obviously it does not make sense to claim that Pope Leo or the Catholics who accept his official teaching are Freemasons. TiE must have meant something else.
-
CATHOLOICS' ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURES THROUGH FREEMASONS BY BELIEVING THEIR GLOBE EARTH LIES. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED! :really-mad2: :fryingpan:
This post is very confusing in addition to the fact that it doesn't make any sense... :confused:
-
I don't get it, are you saying that Pope Leo XIII was a Freemason?
No, I think he is saying that any personal interpretation of the scriptures that fit 'freemasonic' view of globe is a mockery of God. Leo XIII wrote several works condemning Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ based in part on the hoax of Leo Taxil.
-
Regardless, I have a hard time with only interpreting Scriptures literally.
-
Regardless, I have a hard time with only interpreting Scriptures literally.
I recommend that you read Providentissimus Deus for an explanation of how Catholics ought to interpret Scripture. Personally, I find it all very wise and reasonable.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
-
Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him. Correct.
Giving 'science' carta blanca in matters of faith and practice is what derailed the Church.
-
No, I think he is saying that any personal interpretation of the scriptures that fit 'freemasonic' view of globe is a mockery of God. Leo XIII wrote several works condemning Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ based in part on the hoax of Leo Taxil.
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not a hoax... :heretic:
The hoax of L Taxil is claiming that Card Rampolla( Sec of State to Pope Leo) is somehow a 'secret occult mason & GM of OTO' LOL
-
I recommend that you read Providentissimus Deus for an explanation of how Catholics ought to interpret Scripture. Personally, I find it all very wise and reasonable.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
I'm on board with you about Providentissimus Deus. I was referring to the way TiE interprets the Bible
-
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not a hoax... :heretic:
The hoax of L Taxil is claiming that Card Rampolla( Sec of State to Pope Leo) is somehow a 'secret occult mason & GM of OTO' LOL
To clarify:
1) I was not claiming that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a hoax.
2)
No, I think he is saying that any personal interpretation of the scriptures that fit 'freemasonic' view of globe is a mockery of God.
Even though it was two separate sentences, it should have been two separate posts. I was defending Truth is Eternal and believe that I was clarifying his statement that Leo XIII was not a freemason.
3)
Leo XIII wrote several works condemning Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ based in part on the hoax of Leo Taxil.
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not a hoax... :heretic:
The hoax of L Taxil is claiming that Card Rampolla( Sec of State to Pope Leo) is somehow a 'secret occult mason & GM of OTO' LOL
Leo Taxil was a scam artist with a vendetta against the Church. What I was referring to with Leo Taxil was that he had printed "secret' masonic accounts from a lady that claimed to survive ritualistic/sɛҳuąƖ/conjuring/murder and magics by the freemasons. He got to meet with Leo XIII and was paid by the Vatican to continue his works. When he ran out of material, he announced in a theater that it was all hoax to slander the Church (who he hated) and the freemason (who kicked him out). The transcripts of the big reveal are online somewhere, I read them years ago.
-
I'm on board with you about Providentissimus Deus. I was referring to the way TiE interprets the Bible
If he is, in fact, rejecting the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, of course his views are seriously flawed. But I am not really sure what TiE is trying to say.
-
To clarify:
1) I was not claiming that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a hoax.
2) Even though it was two separate sentences, it should have been two separate posts. I was defending Truth is Eternal and believe that I was clarifying his statement that Leo XIII was not a freemason.
3)Leo Taxil was a scam artist with a vendetta against the Church. What I was referring to with Leo Taxil was that he had printed "secret' masonic accounts from a lady that claimed to survive ritualistic/sɛҳuąƖ/conjuring/murder and magics by the freemasons. He got to meet with Leo XIII and was paid by the Vatican to continue his works. When he ran out of material, he announced in a theater that it was all hoax to slander the Church (who he hated) and the freemason (who kicked him out). The transcripts of the big reveal are online somewhere, I read them years ago.
Are u sure that Taxil actually met with Pope Leo? Pls give source.
How could a freemason throw anyone out of R C Church? :confused:
-
What is the point of this thread?
-
What is the point of this thread?
Some time ago, I was asked whether I believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism and I said that I did not know enough to answer and needed to do some research first. I did some reading on the subject and now feel that I understand the Church teaching well enough to express opinions on it.
-
John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf)
-
Some time ago, I was asked whether I believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism and I said that I did not know enough to answer and needed to do some research first. I did some reading on the subject and now feel that I understand the Church teaching well enough to express opinions on it.
Really, because the only opinion I see you expressing is that Catholics are free to believe whatever they want, in regards to Natural Sciences.
-
The problem rests in what people think "literally" means. Literally means in the sense in which the Author intended it. We obviously cannot interpret Scripture in the literal sense of each word always and everywhere or else Scripture would contradict itself. Their own FE ideas would contradict themselves; eg. The compass of the Earth vs. the four corners of the Earth.
That is a flat-out lie.
-
That is a flat-out lie.
which part of his statement, elaborate please
-
which part of his statement, elaborate please
That people do not understand what literal means. That we are unable to understand the literal meaning of words.
Like compass.
Like quarters.
Like error.
-
Some time ago, I was asked whether I believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism and I said that I did not know enough to answer and needed to do some research first. I did some reading on the subject and now feel that I understand the Church teaching well enough to express opinions on it.
Said the heliocentrist.
:facepalm:
-
John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf)
Thank you very much for this. It was fascinating.
-
Really, because the only opinion I see you expressing is that Catholics are free to believe whatever they want, in regards to Natural Sciences.
I don't think I would express it quite like that, but I do think that Catholics are free to believe either geocentrism or heliocentrism.
-
I don't think I would express it quite like that, but I do think that Catholics are free to believe either geocentrism or heliocentrism.
Well, I know, but you were starting this thread to discuss Geo vs Helio/Galileo, not freedom of thought for Catholics in the 21st Century.
-
I don't think I would express it quite like that, but I do think that Catholics are free to believe either geocentrism or heliocentrism.
Where is the papal decree condemning flat earth?
Hint: there isn't one.
But there is a papal decree condemning heliocentrism.
It seems you have a little problem here.
-
John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf)
Page 54 states why a Catholic cannot adhere to heliocentrism, like Jayne, and why one cannot be thelogically indifferent, like AES.
Thanks for that.
-
John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf)
The 1633 Church decree against Galileo on page 59 should be required reading for the flibbertygibbet, Jaynek.
Reading that condemnation should scare any Catholic of good sense out of their adherence to heliocentrism.
It is heresy, full stop.
-
Said the heliocentrist.
:facepalm:
I would not call myself that. While I do not know enough about science to reject the prevailing understanding, neither do I feel strongly enough about it to identify myself with the position. I just do not care very much about physical science.
Speaking spiritually, I am definitely a geocentrist. I consider the Incarnation the central event of creation. All events before it lead up to it and all the events after it come forth from it. Just as the Incarnation is the center of history, the location of the Incarnation is the spiritual center of the universe.
-
Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.
This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.
With regards to the form of the earth, we do know the exegeses from the Fathers of the Church. Earth is not a moving sphere, the Fathers describe it to be a vast plane with mountains and valleys. With four corners, referring to the four directions. The land is encompassed around by water. And there is a dome above the earth in which the sun, moon and stars revolve, with water above the dome. And the dome is actually bound to the earth on all sides. Lo and behold, Scripture says it all in those same words! Its not that we don't know what Scripture says, or what the Fathers taught, its that some of you don't want to hear it, but rather pretend the obvious isn't obvious because you prefer the pagan version. Kind of reminds me of the Protestants that say John 56 isn't talking about the literal flesh of Christ. Or, that in Matthew 16 Christ didn't make Peter the head of the Church but Christ made Peter's confession the head of the Church. Why do people do this?
-
With regards to the form of the earth, we do know the exegeses from the Fathers of the Church.
We know that the authors of Scripture do not intend to speak of physical science. This was explicitly taught by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various papal encyclicals. What you think has been implied by the Fathers does not trump clear Church teachings to the contrary.
While it is possible to find Fathers who personally believed in the flat earth, there is no consensus among them that Catholics are obliged to accept it de fide as teaching from Scripture. I doubt you could even come up with two Fathers who take such a position.
The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.
-
Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.
This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.
Clearly you did not read the article posted by Clemens Maria, which shows the error of your indifference and your malicious and dishonest definition of "literal interpretation" of the Bible.
I will specifically point you to Section 3, page 55and all of Iits paragraphs, which illustrates the totality of your error.
-
Nothing like some good old fashioned condemnations for not believing in something the Church doesn't teach.
Even after my last post you still don't understand what the literal sense means. It never even dawns on you that what the words in English mean and what you interpret it to mean may not be what the Author intended. You accuse us of being like protestants?
Amazing.
You're right if you think I don't understand the literal sense if you're going to insist it isn't actually literal. Nor will I understand the opposite of what the Church teaches and consider it based on literal Scripture especially when the opposite is the case. Getting all tangled up in what isn't is a perfect way to ruin a good mind.
-
I would not call myself that. While I do not know enough about science to reject the prevailing understanding, neither do I feel strongly enough about it to identify myself with the position. I just do not care very much about physical science.
Speaking spiritually, I am definitely a geocentrist. I consider the Incarnation the central event of creation. All events before it lead up to it and all the events after it come forth from it. Just as the Incarnation is the center of history, the location of the Incarnation is the spiritual center of the universe.
Such waffling nonsense from the fool.
She who wants an out in case she is wrong, so she just gives herself one, as though she is God.
Believe or not, she says.
Believe what you like, she says.
I don't really care, she says.
It's only, spiritual, not literally the center, she says.
But whatever you do, do not believe the literal reading of the Word, she says.
Believe in "science" she says.
Enough of the anti-Catholic nonsense from this resident fool.
-
Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.
This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.
There are zero contradictions.
Compass = circle
Circles divide to quarters.
Quarters have corners.
Upon = above
A dictionary is a useful tool. You should buy one.
Literally.
-
Such waffling nonsense from the fool.
She who wants an out in case she is wrong, so she just gives herself one, as though she is God.
Believe or not, she says.
Believe what you like, she says.
I don't really care, she says.
It's only, spiritual, not literally the center, she says.
But whatever you do, do not believe the literal reading of the Word, she says.
Believe in "science" she says.
Enough of the anti-Catholic nonsense from this resident fool.
Indeed. Add this to lack of evidence for her non case and you have an unbeliever.
-
God is in Heaven above earth, as the Bible says.
Hell is under the earth.
Do you not understand the Bible?
It seems you failed math too.
I do not lack humility because I submit myself to the Church's teachings and the Word.
Your arrogance has prevented you from submitting, and you have placed your faith in men of science. And your lukewarmness has made you believe you are allowed indifference, which you are not.
-
I would not call myself that.
Nor would most modern scientists accept the label "heliocentrist" ... it's an abandoned position. If you believe in gravity (the existence of which actually remains in doubt), everything would revolve around the center of mass and not the sun, and the sun itself is not stationary as the heliocentrists would have it. Even the sun rotates around this center of mass. That's even by modern science.
-
John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf)
Here is a better thesis on the Galileo affair. Daly is a Sedevacantist and therefore is biased against the infallibility of the 1616 decree.
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf)
-
Here is a better thesis on the Galileo affair. Daly is a Sedevacantist and therefore is biased against the infallibility of the 1616 decree.
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf)
Some sedevacantists actually exaggerate the scope of infallibility. So it's hit or miss with them.
-
We know that the authors of Scripture do not intend to speak of physical science. This was explicitly taught by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various papal encyclicals. What you think has been implied by the Fathers does not trump clear Church teachings to the contrary.
While it is possible to find Fathers who personally believed in the flat earth, there is no consensus among them that Catholics are obliged to accept it de fide as teaching from Scripture. I doubt you could even come up with two Fathers who take such a position.
The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.
Clearly this passage teaches science regarding kinds of creatures. But then again, you don't believe anyone can understand scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:41
All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. 40 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-40.htm)And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. 41 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-41.htm)One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
-
Jaynek: The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.
If (ironically) Galileo was condemned for it, your first premise that Scripture doesn't teach us about the earth is false. The Church doesn't condemn for no reason.
-
To clarify:
1) I was not claiming that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a hoax.
2) Even though it was two separate sentences, it should have been two separate posts. I was defending Truth is Eternal and believe that I was clarifying his statement that Leo XIII was not a freemason.
3)Leo Taxil was a scam artist with a vendetta against the Church. What I was referring to with Leo Taxil was that he had printed "secret' masonic accounts from a lady that claimed to survive ritualistic/sɛҳuąƖ/conjuring/murder and magics by the freemasons. He got to meet with Leo XIII and was paid by the Vatican to continue his works. When he ran out of material, he announced in a theater that it was all hoax to slander the Church (who he hated) and the freemason (who kicked him out). The transcripts of the big reveal are online somewhere, I read them years ago.
Pope Leo XIII ended his 1884 Encyclical Humanum genus by specifying certain actions that could be performed by the faithful in exposing and resisting the aims of Masonry. This prompted a deluge of books and newspaper articles with disclosures on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, detailing many of their beliefs, activities and influences. Of note were those details about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ by a French journalist Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, an anti-clericalist who supposedly converted to the Catholic faith in the 1885. Following this, he was solemnly received into the Church when he renounced his earlier works. In 1887 he had an audience with Pope Leo XIII , who then rebuked the Bishop of Charlestown for denouncing the man’s confessions as a fraud. In 1896 Pope Leo XIII sent his papal blessing to the anti-Masonic Congress when it was held in Trent that year.
Writing under the name of Leo Taxil, Jogand-Pagès published a sensational story that one branch of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was following a form of devil-worship called Palladianism, of which one Diana Vaughan was a High Priestess. The Masons however, advancing a public constitution of promoting tolerance, benevolence and good-fellowship, vehemently denied any connection with Lucifer or that they indulge in sorcery, witchcraft, magic or any such occultism. Following this came Masonic disclosures under the name of Diana Vaughan herself. Of all the revelations by many authors of the time, some of which were probably gross exaggerations and fabrications, those written under the name of Miss Vaughan suggested they were the most authoritative and revealing of all. In the book A Manual of Sex Magick[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1) the author wrote: ‘It was announced that a lineal descendent of the celebrated mystic and occultist Thomas Vaughan of England had been discovered in Paris and that she was a woman of the highest magical attainment. It was not long before a substantial membership had been taken in the Order.’ This woman was Miss Diana Vaughan.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) Louis Culling: A Manual of Sex Magic, Llewellyn Publications, USA, 1971.
-
I will continue with my investigation of Diana Vaughan.
It seems the problem for the Palladist Freemasons arose when - according to Diana Vaughan - Joan of Arc, by means of a spiritual manifestation, did battle with three of Lucifer’s angelic demons troubling her because of her promise to a Catholic priest not to blaspheme the Blessed Virgin in any way ever again. This intervention, after much soul-searching, led her to convert to Catholicism. Then, feeling deceived and cheated in religious and metaphysical matters up to this time, she tried to make amends by bringing the truth into the open, hoping to convert all her ‘brothers and sisters’ within the Palladian sect to Christianity. In a book ‘Recollections of an Ex-Palladist,’ by Diana Vaughan, she confirmed things that had been written earlier by others and made known new details about the Palladists of the time. For four years Diana Vaughan revealed the origin of modern Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and gave details of Lucifer’s activity within Palladism as well as the goings-on of named ‘Illuminati.’ Her disclosures were hailed in Rome as a great victory over Hell. St Therese of Lisieux hailed her conversion. The Pope’s Cardinal Vicar wrote to her saying her conversion was ‘one of the most magnificent triumphs of grace that he had ever witnessed,’ and sent, on behalf of the Pope himself, a ‘most special blessing.’ Another Catholic journal wrote: ‘Here we witness a struggle of epic proportions unknown in this world, “hand to hand” spiritual combat between the organised forces of Hell and a humble woman of God, raised up by Him for the task.’
The Masons did not challenge the details of Miss Vaughan’s facts, but tried only to distort them and to diminish or ruin the extent of their significance. Soon however they changed tactics and with diabolical intelligence put together an ingenious plan of attack. They decided to put out the successful rumour that the Diana Vaughan all had read about did not exist in reality. This story prompted Miss Vaughan to announce that she would show herself in public with Leo Taxil in Paris on April 19, 1897. By that fateful day however, Miss Vaughan had disappeared, and Taxil, obviously knowing she would not show, announced that Diana Vaughan was only a figment of his imagination. In one stroke of pure genius, for 99.9% believed him, all the revelations and papal encyclicals on Satan’s direct role in Masonry became the object of doubt and even ridicule thereby losing their credibility. Thereafter Taxil’s ruse as Diana Vaughan is written up as one of greatest hoaxes in history, even in Catholic books. For the vast majority, whether inside or outside the Church, the matter had ended; the role of Satan in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was then seen as pure fiction. Never again did a pope condemn Freemasonic Luciferianism and today it is as though Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ no longer poses an anti-Christian threat at all.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) The propaganda that Diana Vaughan and her revelations are fiction can be found today in Wikipedia, numerous websites, some Catholic Encyclopaedias and in many books such as Jasper Ridly’s The Freemasons; Robinson, London, 2000, p.225; Laurence Gardner’s The Shadow of Solomon; Harper Element, 2005, pp.245-6 and Lynn Picknett’s Lucifer, Robinson, 2005, p.239.
-
There were however, those who either knew or suspected Diana Vaughan did exist and was a member of an ‘Androgynous Lodge,’ one that admitted women. In his investigation for example, Craig Heimbichner questions Leo Taxil’s assertion that he invented Diana Vaughan and all those revelations of the highly guarded inner sanctum of the Scottish Rite of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
‘Masons claim that Taxil was simply a disgruntled expelled Entered Apprentice (First Degree) Mason who turned on them for base motives. If that is the case, how did Taxil manage to publish accurate details from numerous advanced secret rituals in the higher degrees? This writer can attest to this truth because I possess in my personal archive both Taxil’s original descriptions and the actual secret rituals themselves. How would low-level, ex Mason have gained these explosive secrets?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/empty.doc#_ftn1)
Heimbichner then goes on to rebuff Taxil’s other assertion, that only males were freemasons. He quotes the respected Masonic historian Robert Macoy, to prove ‘the rules admitted both sexes to membership, the male members were called the “Companions of Ulysses,” and the females the “Sisters of Penelope.” Heimbichner also quotes Freemason and Golden Dawn leader A. E. Waite admitting the Order of the Palladium existed. We are then told of the discovery of the Palladium Temple in May 1895 wherein the owners of rented buildings found a room inscribed with the words Templum Palladicuм. A large tapestry was found in this room upon which was woven a larger-than-life figure of Lucifer. Heimbichner tells of a modern writer, William Schnoebelen (formally OTO IX˚) who said he was inducted into a Palladium Lodge in the late 1970s by a David DePaul. DePaul restarted the Palladium after supposedly invoking the spirit of Diana Vaughan. ‘If Leo Taxil was a hoaxer then this invocation is difficult to understand since “Diana Vaughan” had been “Priestess of Lucifer” in the Freemasonic Palladium rite described by Taxil. If Vaughan was a figment of Taxil’s fevered imagination why would she be invoked by an OTO faction in the 1970s?’
‘It would seem that some of Taxil’s revelations do in fact reflect some highly unusual but actual Masonic events. Masons revel in gadgetry, techno-wizardry and Scientism (as distinct from God-ordained natural science), as part of their obsession with Alchemy and occult symbolism. Inventions, dazzling effects, and the pseudo-miraculous are part and parcel of the stagecraft of the Craft, which has among its spiritual ancestors the magicians of Pharaonic Egypt who tried to imitate Moses by conjuring snakes (and did so, at least in credible appearance). To put spice into this sizzling stew, Aleister Crowley’s secretary Isreal Regardie, testifies in his book The Eye in the Triangle to having seen a Palladium charter signed by Leo Taxil and Diana Vaughan.’ --- Craig Heimbichner: Blood on the Altar, p.73.
The idea that Taxil could have been fed fiction by Freemasons is not ruled out by Heimbichner, nor that he might have been a double or even a triple agent. He ends his chapter on Diana Vaughan with ‘Is not the OTO the continuation of the Palladium of Diana Vaughan, the “Graduate School” for salivating and serious Masons?’ Others closer to the woman at the time of her disappearance have their own story. Evidence of her existence was found in a church in Loigny in Northern France that Diana Vaughan had visited in secret in March 1897, one month before her set date for a public appearance.
To make a long story short, the parish priest of Loigny confirmed Diana Vaughan’s visit by means of a visual reproduction and also the signature she had left in his church’s log. It was not the name Diana Vaughan that she had signed, for anybody could have forged that signature, but Juvana Petroff, a mysterious name known only to her and the priest to whom it made sense. It was later revealed as her baptismal name that she took when taking her confession of faith in the Catholic Church.
But more, as only God can arrange from eternity, this fateful day at Loigny happened to coincide with the five hundredth anniversary of the death of Joan of Arc, sworn enemy of the Devil and made a saint in 1933.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/empty.doc#_ftnref1) Craig Heimbichner: Blood on the Altar, Independent History & Research, USA, 2005, p.68.
-
Clearly this passage teaches science regarding kinds of creatures. But then again, you don't believe anyone can understand scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:41
All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. 40 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-40.htm)And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. 41 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-41.htm)One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
Jaynek will have to spin an untenable fable to show that 1 Cor 15:39-41 does not intend to teach physical science and that it does not really mean what it says it does.
-
As I showed, Catholics are free to accept the modern understanding of heliocentrism.
Catholics are required philosophically to accept evidence before their eyes. Obstinacy is a sin and can in the long term affect our faith.
You still refuse to look at the science.
-
Catholics are required philosophically to accept evidence before their eyes. Obstinacy is a sin and can in the long term affect our faith.
You still refuse to look at the science.
To the extent that I can understand the science, I believe that the earth is basically spherical and that neither Ptolemaic geocentrism nor Copernican heliocentrism is true. Rather, the earth and sun both orbit their barycentre and move in relation to the galaxy.
My grasp of science only goes up to basic Newtonian physics. Considering the arrangement of the cosmos involves special relativity. I do not know enough to challenge the current scientific consensus and it would take years of study for me to get to that point.
In the areas that I do understand, theology and history, I can see that most of the flat earthers posting here are intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant. I have no respect for them and find it unlikely that they understand science any better than they understand Church teaching. They have no credibility in my eyes, since Smedley Butler tells blatant lies and none of them cares about the truth enough to object.
If I were to encounter someone who accepted Church teaching and acknowledged that we cannot base our beliefs about natural science on Scripture and made an argument for flat earth/geocentrism solely on science, I might take his opinions seriously enough to look into the science more than I have. That has not happened yet.
-
Clearly this passage teaches science regarding kinds of creatures. But then again, you don't believe anyone can understand scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:41
All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. 40 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-40.htm)And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. 41 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-41.htm)One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
No this passage is not teaching science. It is part of a larger passage which uses an analogy from the physical world to explain the concept of the resurrected body. What it teaches about the resurrected body is true for all time. The assumptions about physical science are those of the period and not relevant to what is being taught. We are not bound to accept those assumptions because it is not the intent of the passage to teach them.
-
Jaynek did not disappoint, she gave exactly the bullc*&! answer I expected.
It's actually a good thing.
It allows those who love truth to see her error very clearly.
A Catholic of good will and good sensus fidei would be hard-pressed to read that passage and think God was not trying to teach the difference between kinds of creatures and the difference between celestial and earthly bodies.
-
The bible cannot be understood as if to conclude that it is not infallible in every sense, science included. Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
-
There you have it: Bible infallible in EVERY sense, including science.
Yet Jaynek argues it is wrong or that it doesn't mean what it clearly says.
I feel sorry, in a way, for her small, dry, limited experience of God.
-
The bible cannot be understood as if to conclude that it is not infallible in every sense, science included. Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
I like how Benedict XV emphasizes that even the individual words are infallible.
Jaynek, in her cherry-picking, would find some pretzel logic way to reject Benedict's statement.
-
These Fathers say there is a firmament and that it is a solid boundary above earth.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
-
The bible cannot be understood as if to conclude that it is not infallible in every sense, science included. Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
This section is about people who were misusing the teaching of Providentissimus Deus to claim that only the parts of Scripture concerning faith were inspired and without error. But we must not ever claim that there are errors in Scripture. Understanding that Scripture is not intended to teach science does not mean there are errors in it.
Let's say for example there were a passage of Scripture that said Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east. According to Providentissimus Deus, the intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and this meaning would be true, inspired and without error. It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it because Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science. A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears. It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.
Understanding Scripture this way in no way implies there are any errors in it or that any part lacks inspiration, but modernists were twisting Providentissimus Deus to claim that it does. Benedict XV was correcting the modernists' errors, not disagreeing with Leo XIII.
-
This section is about people who were misusing the teaching of Providentissimus Deus to claim that only the parts of Scripture concerning faith were inspired and without error. But we must not ever claim that there are errors in Scripture. Understanding that Scripture is not intended to teach science does not mean there are errors in it.
Let's say for example there were a passage of Scripture that said Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east. According to Providentissimus Deus, the intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and this meaning would be true, inspired and without error. It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it because Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science. A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears. It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.
Understanding Scripture this way in no way implies there are any errors in it or that any part lacks inspiration, but modernists were twisting Providentissimus Deus to claim that it does. Benedict XV was correcting the modernists' errors, not disagreeing with Leo XIII.
Oh my goodness. It says what it says. You don't have to paraphrase and couch the words to fit your notions. Saying Scripture cannot touch on science is like saying the Church has no business in the private lives of women who want to abort their kids. The Church is the authority over all things, and even proscribes false science, which is what the world discovered when She condemned pagan heliocentrism. Your attempts to deny this are plain wrong.
-
These Fathers say there is a firmament and that it is a solid boundary above earth.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
Good explanation about the firmament from Fathers of the Church, which I assume they based on Scripture.
-
Good explanation about the firmament from Fathers of the Church, which I assume they based on Scripture.
Oh indeed. Assures those claiming separation between Church and science are sadly mistaken.
-
This section is about people who were misusing the teaching of Providentissimus Deus to claim that only the parts of Scripture concerning faith were inspired and without error. But we must not ever claim that there are errors in Scripture. Understanding that Scripture is not intended to teach science does not mean there are errors in it.
Let's say for example there were a passage of Scripture that said Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east. According to Providentissimus Deus, the intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and this meaning would be true, inspired and without error. It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it because Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science. A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears. It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.
Understanding Scripture this way in no way implies there are any errors in it or that any part lacks inspiration, but modernists were twisting Providentissimus Deus to claim that it does. Benedict XV was correcting the modernists' errors, not disagreeing with Leo XIII.
But you do not even agree with Benedict XV who said "even the individual words of the Bible are infallible."
-
Jaynek, in your opening post you said
During my break, I had the opportunity to do some research about Galileo and reached some conclusions. This is what I came up with:
We often discuss matters of faith and morals in which the Church teachings are infallible and unchanging. For example, the Eucharist will always be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Abortion will always be intrinsically evil. But teachings pertaining to natural science don’t work this way. They can be changed when scientific knowledge changes.
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote about this specifically in relation to heliocentrism (reference (http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html)) and later popes wrote of the general principle.
Quote
'I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully Jaynek you are open to the truth of the Galileo case. Accordingly I will start at the beginning and work my way through your posts that reflect the errors you have been subjected to by way of the propaganda the world of both Church and State have been subjected to for various reasons.
'But teachings pertaining to natural science don’t work this way.'
What you are saying here is that nothing pertaining to nature in the Bible can be dogmatised. Well let me show you the subtle error in this statement. In 1616 Pope Paul V dogmatised the fact that the Bible reveals a moving sun around the earth. 'Hold on,' you say, 'I have read up on the Galileo case and this is the opinion of thousands.' Well had you read on in that Letter of Bellarmine's you would see how a fact of nature (which you have been led to call 'natural science') was dogmatised:
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures 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 centre 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 (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). 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 prophets and apostles.’
The dogma that the sun does move around the earth then is not based on 'natural science' as you have been led to believe but by way of WHO said it and where it was revealed. In other words if it is in the Scriptures and is agreed as such by all the Fathers then it is an infallible truth.
-
Jaynek, it is perfectly clear you are a victim of the Galilean reformation. This is not your fault but a consequence of your research into the Galileo caase that has given you - and millions of others I may add - a false understanding of Catholic Scriptural exegesis.
Why on earth do you think that 27 years after Providentissimus Deus Pope Benedict XV felt the need for a SECOND encyclical on Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics Spiritus Paraclitus? Well the reaon is because the attack on the Scriptures had intensified after Providentissimus Deus. Pope Leo XIII was also a victim of the 1741-1835 U-turn of the 1616 decrees against interpreting the Scriptures in a heliocentris manner. I mean after all, you yourself showed that in 1820 Pope Pius VII allowed books denying the dogma of an orbiting sun be taken off the index. So when Leo wrote his encyclical he was trying to stop further attacks on the Bible from 'science' while at the same time having to cope with that U-turn, when 'natural science' was SUPPOSED to have shown the 1616 decree on biblical interpretation was an error. So, after a brilliant number of chapters Pope Leo has to address the churchmen's U-turn to a moving earth as an interpretation of a moving sun.
‘15: But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’
Wow, after all he said he gave licence to science 'when just cause exists' to depart from the literal. Now he was under the illusion that 'just cause' existed to 'depart from the literal' geocentrism of Scripture. Now I can quote many references to this licence, including Pope John Paul II that allowed 'science' to change Scripture.
And that is what happened. So much so that Pope Benedict had to TRY to stop it with another encyclical. His was brilliant and he totally disregarded Leo's licence and said every word of Scripture is revealed by God as true.
But then the Jayneks of history started to tell everybody how to Galileanise Spiritus Paraclitus and make it conform with Galileo's reformation just as you are doing now. So much so that
In 1943, on the 50th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and 23 years after Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII unveiled Divino Afflante Spiritu, the third encyclical on biblical studies. Now why on earth did the Church need a third encyclical on the Bible?
‘In more recent times, however, since the devine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defence and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solem decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been want to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time [1943] the Vatican Council , with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declarerd that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, not merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”’
Pius XII was a Big Bang Copernican evolutionist and in this Letter gave more licences to challenge the meaning of Scripture with science, so much so that:
‘This freeze [after Benedict XV's encyclical] endured until in 1943 Pius XII’s great encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu reopened the door to the use of modern methods of biblical study and established scholarship in the scientific investigation of the Scriptures. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was quick to follow this initiative with a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris… taking this as an encouragement to revisit areas which had been blocked off by earlier decisions… stressing that in the context of the times it would have been unwise to teach a particular doctrine, but not that a particular doctrine was untrue or incorrect…. No responsible biblical scholar would today agree with any of these directives of the Biblical Commission.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) Henry Wansbrough OSB (current member of the PBC: The Centenary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ampleforth Journal, autumn 2003.
All the above is in the history of Galileo's Reformation, the one churchmen entered from 1741 to 1835 and continues in our time also.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Of course there is nothing strange about the Holy Office making judgements that are not infallible, but given the language used, I think there would have been a good case for claiming it was infallible if there had not been a later decree removing the condemnation.
-
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:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied [Holy Office of 1616?], have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
I will continue in my next post.
-
Of course there is nothing strange about the Holy Office making judgements that are not infallible, but given the language used, I think there would have been a good case for claiming it was infallible if there had not been a later decree removing the condemnation.
I don't think so. Holy Office does not enjoy the charism of infallibility ... even if approved by a Pope, regardless of the language used. Subsequent approval by a pope is not the same thing as a teaching originating with him. Now, if a Pope issued an encyclical to the Universal Church using the same language ... then we'd have to regard it as infallible.
-
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 4th, 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.
-
I don't think so. Holy Office does not enjoy the charism of infallibility ... even if approved by a Pope, regardless of the language used. Subsequent approval by a pope is not the same thing as a teaching originating with him. Now, if a Pope issued an encyclical to the Universal Church using the same language ... then we'd have to regard it as infallible.
Just wondering...the Holy Office used the words, "say, declare, define," etc. in the Galileo case as if speaking on behalf of the Church. Besides the books and articles written that say the Church employed infallibility in the matter, can you say with certainty that the use of such words is ever employed independent of the Church simply because it was issued from the Holy Office? Also, I'm wondering if you know of any instance where the Church or other arm of the Church used such words and then reversed the statement with like words?