Author Topic: Why? (Read 10962 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:00:19 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 01:29:26 PM

I don't see how he could be. His position was quoted and confirmed by magisterial teaching in Providentissimus Deus:
...
Galileo's theory did not impugn the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, but rather the Church's authority as the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture. Rather than confining himself to science, he was giving interpretations of Scripture in support of his theories. He was also trying to manipulate Church authorities to confirm these interpretations. Obviously his actions were worthy of condemnation, but, as I understand it, not in a way that precluded the Church changing her interpretation in the future if there were a good reason to do so.

You're misapplying PD similar to how the Modernists do, as I already explained above ... but more importantly, as Pope Benedict XVI explained, and as cited by cassini.

Galileo impugned both, flip sides of the same coin. St. Robert Bellarmine clearly and explicitly affirmed that Galileo's opinions contradicted Sacred Scripture, the true sense of which is known by the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. Church did not merely condemn his actions, his defiance of Church authorities -- but the substance of his theories and declared them to be contrary to Sacred Scripture. That is the Modernist spin attempt to explain away the "Galileo Affair" as "the Church didn't condemn his theories but more his attitude and his disobedience, etc." One need merely read the text of the condemnation. It's very clear.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:08:45 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 05:08:25 PM

I see no reason to think that there was a U-turn in Church teaching or that any of the Pope's involved were wrong. The decree in 1616 was right. The change to the Index in 1820 was also right because the situation had changed.

You've just articulated Modernism in a nutshell. In 1616, 2+2 = 4 was right. But then in 1820, 2+2=5 is right. Both were right ... due to the changing situation.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #32 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:35:32 PM »

Quote

Aside from the Flat Earth issue, per se, one thing that the Church Fathers were unanimous on was about the existence of a real physical firmament that separated real physical waters from the earth.

This is fact. "Firmament" = real.

Quote

Sacred Scripture is very clear about that, and the Church Fathers unanimously upheld this view. So the replacement of this firmament with some notion of "space" would certainly be amenable to condemnation.

True. "Space" is fake.

Quote

The conditions under which the Church would condemn a belief in globe earth are not likely to occur after so many centuries of promoting the position through her educational institutions.

First, you argue that the "Church Fathers" agreement isn't infallible, then you argue that there is some kind of "consistent theory"? There's not. The Church has never made a ruling on such things. So, all things are 'in play' in regards to condemnations, especially the globe model.

Quote

They did all believe in a solid firmament that kept the waters out, and such a firmament around a ball would be an interesting concept to say the least.

Right. This is a key element of 'flat earthism'.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #33 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:38:47 PM »

Quote

What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...

The point is, St Augustine's description does not preclude a flat earth in either description.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:39:50 PM »

Code: [Select]

But even if there is unanimity among the Fathers on the question, this does not mean that we are obliged to accept it.Absolutely false, Jaynek! This is the root of your error...

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2023, 10:24:36 PM »

Quote from: cassini on June 26, 2023, 03:54:08 PM

So, having stated in his Providentissimus Deus that when all the Fathers agree on an interpretation, it cannot be changes, and the 1616 decree was one that all the Fathers agreed with, this encyclical actually confirmed the 1616 decree as irreversible.

Sorry I am not familiar with these docuмents. Is PE infallible? And does make in turn make the 1616 decree infallible? I think a summary/list of decrees/statements on this topic would help immensely, as there is so many conflicting opinions/interpretations.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** June 26, 2023, 11:53:55 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 01:56:26 PM

We are not obliged to follow the interpretation of the Fathers in our understanding of what is meant by the firmament. If this is not clear to you from the words of Leo XIII (thanks for the correction on the name of the pope) then perhaps it will be in this statement of Pontifical Biblical Commission under the authority of Pius X :

As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the negative.

Sorry, but you're promoting the Modernist view, that because Genesis didn't intend directly or as its primary object to teach about science that there aren't scientific and historical matters treated of secondarily in Sacred Scripture that must also be considered as treat of inerrantly. This is precisely what the Modernists did with PD.

Yes, we are obliged to believe that there's a firmament that has the property of being solid enough to hold waters back from inundating the earth. That is clearly what Sacred Scripture describes, and thus the Fathers are unanimous in this understanding of it.

You just don't want to believe it because you prefer the conclusions of modern science (with its atheistic agenda) to the plain sense of Sacred Scripture as unanimously understood by the Fathers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** June 26, 2023, 11:55:04 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on June 26, 2023, 10:24:36 PM

Sorry I am not familiar with these docuмents. Is PE infallible? And does make in turn make the 1616 decree infallible? I think a summary/list of decrees/statements on this topic would help immensely, as there is so many conflicting opinions/interpretations.

No, PD was not strictly infallible, but the interpretation JayneK has been promoting is the very modernist interpretation of PD that Pope Benedict XV condemned (see the citation by cassini above).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 26, 2023, 11:58:56 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 26, 2023, 09:39:50 PM

Code: [Select]
But even if there is unanimity among the Fathers on the question, this does not mean that we are obliged to accept it.Absolutely false, Jaynek! This is the root of your error...

This is where the problem lines: while it's true that simply because the Fathers were unanimous in some belief does not inherently render that belief infallible and obligatory, nevertheless, when, as in the case here, that unanimity of belief has to do with the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and is derived from their exegetical reading of Sacred Scripture (rather than their eisegesis of some extrinsic philosophical position onto Sacred Scripture), that interpretation is definitive. It is very clear that in their understanding of the firmament, they are simply deriving it from the plain and obvious meaning of the Sacred Scriptures themselves and are not imposing some extrinsic philosophical or scientific concept onto them. In other words, it depends upon WHY they are unanimous in their teaching. Was it simply because they were imposing the current scientific consensus onto the text or was it because they were reading it OUT OF the texts of Sacred Scripture? With regard to the firmament, it was clearly the latter.

St. Robert Bellarmine clearly rejects JayneK's reasoning on this matter. No, the Holy Office did not condemn Galileo simply because he was a troublemaker defying their authority. One need simply read the text of the condemnation, and St. Robert Bellarmine's writings on the matter. That is just dishonest spin rolled out in an attempt to explain away "the Galileo affair". They condemned the content of Galileo's theory because it contradicted Sacred Scripture as unanimously interpreted by the Church Fathers ... even though it pertained to a scientific matter. St. Robert explained that a scientific matter can become a matter of faith indirectly when it contradicts Sacred Scripture and therefore impugns its inerrancy, due to the ex parte Dicentis.

cassini · « **Reply #39 on:** June 27, 2023, 05:46:57 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 05:08:25 PM

I see no reason to think that there was a U-turn in Church teaching or that any of the Pope's involved were wrong. The decree in 1616 was right. The change to the Index in 1820 was also right because the situation had changed. Pope Leo XIII wrote in continuity with his predecessors who allowed this change. This had nothing to do with causing modernism. The idea of interpretting Scripture in non-literal ways to reconcile it with science goes back to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. If this idea was harmful, surely the harm would have occured before the rise of modernism.

Modernism was caused by the twisting of Catholic teaching to incorporate Enlightment ideas. The Enlightment, in turn, was made possible by the attack on Church authority by the Protestant "Reformation".

As Ladilaus has also pointed out, here are so many contradictions above it is difficult to address them. 'The change to the Index in 1820 was also right because the situation had changed. Pope Leo XIII wrote in continuity with his predecessors who allowed this change.' Are you a heliocentrist jaynek? Only a heliocentrist could make such a comment. What exactly do you think began the 'enlightenment?

‘For over three and a half centuries, the trial of Galileo has been an anti-Catholic bludgeon wielded to show the Church as the enemy of enlightenment, freedom of thought and scientific advancement. In the cultural wars of our own day, Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump-card, played whenever the discussion is over science, abortion, gαy rights, legalised pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for blatant anti-Catholicism.’--- Robert Lockwood (Robert Lockwood: The Galileo Affair, Position Papers, May 2001.)

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** June 27, 2023, 07:04:46 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 05:08:25 PM

The 1616 decree was made by the Congregation of the Index and was therefore not a statement of doctrine. It could not define a heresy. This Congregation's authority pertained to "the Index of books and their licensing, prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom". Its decrees are, by their very nature, reformable.

Again Janek, who are you trying to kid? Oh I know, after the 1820 U-turn on the 1616 decree, the now heliocentric Catholics had to find ways of making the Holy Office decree look like a stupid mistake. Well, for the sake of others, let us see the truth; First the Index. The Index was the Holy Office's way of banning books containing heresy.

The Holy Office
So, what was the Holy Office of 1616? Well, in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books and other measures, but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known simply as the Index, was established in 1572. It was a body placed by the Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the early years of the Church. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers. Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope Paul V placed all other departments of the Church in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation.

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished representatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’--- Fr W. Roberts.

This then is the Holy Office that presided over the Galileo case in 1616. It is the same Inquisition that 16 years earlier found Bruno guilty of many heresies and false doctrines he refused to repent; the same Holy Office that condemned him to death after a long trial lest he, as a cleric, spread his heresies leading to the loss of many other poor souls with him.

That said Janek, who decides what authority the 1616 decree had. Henry Newman, you, or Pope Urban VIII? Here is how Pope Urban described your reformable 1616 decree:

The Inquisition’s Sentence:‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine [Biblical heliocentrism] might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Sacred Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” ‘Thus the declaration of the Index - for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed - was identified with the condemnatory judgment made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough but note what followed. “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope [Paul V], and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But in what sense Papal? In a sense according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with declarations and definitions the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. It was papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.’

The sentence continued: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures - to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. ”’

Ah, but you know better Janek, don't you?

But that is not all. In 1820, when they were about to rubbish the above sentence, Olivieri, Head man in the Holy Office then, admitted;

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213

Jaynek · « **Reply #41 on:** June 27, 2023, 07:47:25 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 11:53:55 PM

Sorry, but you're promoting the Modernist view, that because Genesis didn't intend directly or as its primary object to teach about science that there aren't scientific and historical matters treated of secondarily in Sacred Scripture that must also be considered as treat of inerrantly. This is precisely what the Modernists did with PD.

Yes, we are obliged to believe that there's a firmament that has the property of being solid enough to hold waters back from inundating the earth. That is clearly what Sacred Scripture describes, and thus the Fathers are unanimous in this understanding of it.

You just don't want to believe it because you prefer the conclusions of modern science (with its atheistic agenda) to the plain sense of Sacred Scripture as unanimously understood by the Fathers.

I quoted something that was affirmed as authoritative by Pius X. That is not Modernism. At that point in time, the PBC was a tool against Modernism.

Church teaching is very clear that there are conditions under which one should not understand Scripture in its literal sense. St. Robert Bellarmine would have supported a non-literal interpretation, if Galileo had had a stronger case for his science theories. I am following Catholic teaching to the best of my understanding. You are making an ad hominem argument in which you fabricate my motives.

There is no point trying to have a discussion with a person who relies on fallacious arguments as you do. You habitually use ad hominem and straw men arguments and are not worth engaging with.

I have presented the docuмents on which I have based my conclusions. It is a waste of my time to continue in this thread, merely to be attacked and piled on.

Jaynek · « **Reply #42 on:** June 27, 2023, 08:04:41 AM »

Quote from: cassini on June 27, 2023, 05:46:57 AM

As Ladilaus has also pointed out, here are so many contradictions above it is difficult to address them. 'The change to the Index in 1820 was also right because the situation had changed. Pope Leo XIII wrote in continuity with his predecessors who allowed this change.' Are you a heliocentrist jaynek? Only a heliocentrist could make such a comment.

No, I am not a heliocentrist. I actually think that geocentrism (unlike flat earth) is a reasonable position for Catholics to hold. I just don't think that Catholics are obliged to hold it.

Quote from: cassini on June 27, 2023, 05:46:57 AM

What exactly do you think began the 'enlightenment?

‘For over three and a half centuries, the trial of Galileo has been an anti-Catholic bludgeon wielded to show the Church as the enemy of enlightenment, freedom of thought and scientific advancement. In the cultural wars of our own day, Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump-card, played whenever the discussion is over science, abortion, gαy rights, legalised pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for blatant anti-Catholicism.’--- Robert Lockwood (Robert Lockwood: The Galileo Affair, Position Papers, May 2001.)

There is no question that the Galileo situation is misrepresented to support anti-Catholicism and modern secularism (the heir of the "Enlightenment"). This does not mean Galileo began the "Enlightenment." The people who portray him as a martyr for science are being dishonest. The Church did nothing wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** June 27, 2023, 08:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 27, 2023, 08:04:41 AM

The Church did nothing wrong.

It wasn't just that the Church did nothing wrong, but the Church taught nothing wrong. As I mentioned, it's a mischaracterization of the Galileo situation to explain it away as just punishing Galileo for insubordination or arrogance, etc. Rather, the Church was condemning his actual theories as contrary to the Sacred Scriptures as unanimously interpreted by the Church Fathers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 27, 2023, 08:34:45 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 27, 2023, 07:47:25 AM

I quoted something that was affirmed as authoritative by Pius X. That is not Modernism. At that point in time, the PBC was a tool against Modernism.

Problem isn't with St. Pius X or Leo XIII, but with your misapplication of what they wrote into the mentality of being able to ignore or disregard the meaning of Sacred Scripture as understood unanimously by the Church Fathers ... if it happens to deal with a scientific (or, by extension, historical) matter. That is false, and that was not the intent of Leo XIII (as later clarified by Benedict XV) nor of St. Pius X. This is one step away from attributing error to Sacred Scripture on scientific or historical matters that don't "avail to salvation". That's the trajectory your interpretation is on, the same one that the Modernists took to the next level.

Author Topic: Why? (Read 10962 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why?

Pax Vobis

Re: Why?

AnthonyPadua

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

cassini

Re: Why?

cassini

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?