Quote from: AnthonyPadua 6/19/2024, 11:14:52 PM

So if Pius 7 and 12 are heretics what would that mean for the good things they did/wrote? I am not familiar with Pius 7 but Pius 12 wrote some useful docuмents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now popes can write many good Catholic things, but few men in the streets ever get to read them. For the interest of readers on this forum, perhaps the only true Catholic forum that ever allowed discussion on the heresy of heliocentrism, let me say this story explains why the Catholic Church went from what it was to where it is now, empty of priests and nuns, what churches are left are half-empty, with popes commenting on creation as illustrated below, all thanks To Popes Benedict XIV and Pius VII who began and finally allowed Galileo's heresy enter the womb of the Church.

‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before.

For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church

in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, [her Mass] and her mission from something supernatural

to something secular.’ (Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019)

There is no doubt, it was Galileo's heresy that caused all the changes quoted above. But more than that, for the churchmen of 1633 predicted this would happen if Galileo's biblical changes were made.

‘Pope Urban VIII complained that Galileo “dared entering where he should not have, and into the most severe and dangerous matters that could be  stirred up at this time… matters, which involve great harm to religion and more awful that were ever devised.” The Pope denounced it as “the most perverse subject matter that one could ever handle.” Why? Likewise, representatives of the Society of Jesus said that Galileo’s vile book was “more harmful to the Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin.” But Why? How could anyone say that? The Catholic Church had lost half of Europe because of the influence of Luther and Calvin. How could a scientific question seem in any way more dangerous than the transgressions of the heretical Protestants? How could the “Pythagorean doctrine of the Earth’s motion involve the “most perverse subject” imaginable? I will argue that the problem was that this theory was associated with radical religious heresies. I will place the Copernican revolution in an entirely neglected historical context the pagan beliefs of the cult of Pythagoras: Historians know that the Pythagoreans were a secretive religious group, yet there was no historical account of how the early Christians criticised their evolving pagan beliefs and how such heresies resurfaced during the Copernican Revolution.’ – Professor A. A. Martinez, Pythagoras Bruno Galileo, p.3-4.

the answer to the question marked above is by turning a metaphysical question (Metaphysics is not a scientific way of knowing things because it seeks a different sort of truth which cannot be acquired by the methods of modern empirical science) into one proven by science, Satan fooled the world and popes from 1820 at least. You see only if you could see the movements of the universe from outside could man know for certain what is fixed and what moves, but because man cannot do this his science cannot know such for certain. But God can and He said it was geocentric.

The rot began immediately after 1820 when 'Biblical scholars,' using Pius VII's permission to allow the once defined heretical change to Scripture, started changing all other aspects of Genesis turning the Supernatural creation into one based on 'proven scientific' secular naturalism. First came three encyclicals by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XV and Pope Pius XII all trying to stop the rot but having to allow the Galileo change as an exception due to their predecessors 1820 decree allowing such a change. By our time, when Catholics left this secular natural origins faith in their millions here is where the Catholic faith had come down to.

On the 7th December 1965 in the Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the following statement was placed:

‘The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’--- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

The reference given to this passage was Fr Pio Paschini’s 1945 Life and Work of Galileo Galilei, a book on the Galileo case that had been subjected to ‘several hundred modifications’ after Fr Paschini died, to comply with their 1820 U-turn. Here above in Gaudium et spes, they infer the ‘rightful autonomy’ of science is above that of Holy Scripture, above that of all the Fathers, saints, popes, cardinals and theologians who defended Biblical geocentrism at the Council of Trent, in Rome of 1616, 1633 and in 1664 when Pope Alexander VII placed the ‘Quia ad notitiam’ of 1616; and the ‘monitum’ of 1620 in his new general Index, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the Earth to be ‘repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation.’ In other words, all the above could now be called little more than fundamentalists.

Now let us move on to post-Vatican I.

In 1962 the Catholic Church, now taken over by a majority of Modernists with their new secular creation thinking having eliminated so much of the supernatural, began what they called non-dogmatic Vatican II. It was no such thing. Vatican II will happen only when a dogmatic Vatican Council I is resurrected. That said, in a departing speech to the parish priests and clergy of Rome by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) on the occasion of his resignation from the papacy in February of 2013, the retiring pope gave an insight to his part at the non-dogmatic council called Vatican II, and even the reasons why the Synod was called:

‘The Second Vatican Council, as I saw it... We were hoping that all would be renewed, that there would truly be a new Pentecost, a new era of the Church, because the Church was still fairly robust at that time. Sunday Mass [the Tridentine Latin Mass] attendance was still good, vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already slightly reduced, but still sufficient. However, there was a feeling that the Church was not moving forward, that it was declining, that it seemed more a thing of the past and not the herald of the future…. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress [in the sciences]. Thus we were full of hope, full of enthusiasm, and also eager to play our own part in this process.’-- Pope Benedict XVI.

In 1981 Cardinal Ratzinger attempted a post-Galilean Creation catechesis for adults in four Lenten homilies in the cathedral of Munich. These were later published in a 1981 book IN THE BEGINNING:

‘Yet these words [of Genesis] give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption…. Do these words [of Genesis] then, count for anything? In fact, a theologian said not so long ago that creation has now become an unreal concept. If one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of mutation and selection….I believe that this [my Big Bang] view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial…’

First the modernist ‘science’ of Creation, and now an example of its Galilean consequences.

‘The account [in Genesis] tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal and since God does not run a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?’ -Cardinal Ratzinger: In The Beginning, CFI Bath Press, UK, 1995.

Finally, let us know what our Pope Francis believes.

‘Vatican City, 27 October 2014 (VIS) – This morning the Holy Father attended the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Casina Pio IV, during which he inaugurated a bust of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, whom he described as “a great Pope. Great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence, great for his important contribution to theology, great for his love of the Church and of human beings, great for his virtue and religiosity.” Pope Francis chose not to focus on the complex issue of the evolution of nature, the theme the Academy will consider during this session, emphasising however that “God and Christ walk with us and are also present in nature”. “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation,” Pope Francis said, “we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But it is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal [evolutionary] laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the Universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”’--- Vatican Info Office.

‘God is not a magician,’ says Pope Francis. Indeed, He is not, for magicians are full of ‘tricks’ and illusions. God does not need a magic wand, He created all immediately ‘in its whole substance’ as the dogma says, by His will alone. Now when a man elected Pope of the Catholic Church comes out with the likes of that above, we can see just how far Catholic faith in the supernatural has gone. What could be more Catholic than to simply believe God created all in its whole substance in six days as Genesis reveals. That same Genesis sets out the essence of the Catholic faith in its first sentence, ‘In the beginning God created heaven and Earth,’ a distinction upon which the rest of Holy Scripture and Catholicism rests. For seventeen centuries popes held to that distinction, along with every other revelation in the Bible until the rot set in from 1758 when Satan, by way of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, introduced in equilibro (equilibrium), that is, divide the truth into two wherein faith and secular reasoning are combined in order to undermine the supernatural by making it comply with human reasoning. And as we know, this same equilibrium manifested itself in theistic evolution.

Thanks but it doesn't really answer my question. I think Lad mentioned it before, did they just allow it or teach it? And would the Saints canonised by these Popes really be canonised then?

Father Paul Robinson, anyone?

Unfortunately Viva, even the good Fulton Sheen was not immune from the heresies that changed the Church like dry rot in a cathedral  unnoticed by the faithful;

‘Recently I was happy to read a similar assessment by Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979) written after the 1962 monitum. In an article on Teilhard entitled Personality: Earth and Heaven, Venerable Sheen wrote: “It is very likely that when all the trivial, verbal disputes about Teilhard’s ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross or Saint Teresa of Avila, as a spiritual genius of the twentieth century.” (Footprints in a Darkened Forest by Fulton Sheen, Meredith Press, 1967, Chapter 6)’--- In the Fullness of Time, 20th anniversary of Venerable Sheen’s death, p.72.