Augustine, Galileo and natural science
#51
... So what's happening now?
Reply
#52
(12-08-2016, 07:33 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Yair, orrite, cassini,

I would be flattered if you'd denounce me to your mates in "The Resistance"... a completely weird mob who assume that a pope is automatically infallible if he says what you want to hear and is automatically deposed if he says what you don't want to hear.

Fact is, cobber, the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility says more about when a popey thing is not infallible than when he is. The conditions for papal infallibility are very stringent and limiting.

Your "infallible" papal endorsement of Geocentrism doesn't come within a bull's roar of being a defined article, or dogma, of the Faith. If that's an article of Faith then so is the "climate science" proposed by Poop Frank T'Googlio Monster.

I guess that you're not expecting a life subscription to your cult from me.

What you excell at Oldavid is RHETORIC, bombast, loftiness, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, ornateness, portentousness, pomposity, boastfulness, boasting, bragging, heroics, hyperbole, extravagant language, purple prose, pompousness, sonorousness, call it whatever you like.

What you avoid like the plague is addressing the facts of history and the details of Trent's and Vatican I's teaching on the subject of infallibiklity. You mouth as if you were God himself, deciding what to reject as infallible no matter what the teaching says or who judged it to be infallible, that is without error and Catholic dogma.

Your protestantism is easily demonstrated.

Here is my answer to your rejection of Catholic teaching.

First the 1616 decree: (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

Here is what Vatican I says in its dogma of infallibility. Apply this to the above 1616 decree:

‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutary decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men [ the Oldavids of this world], We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Denz. 1788)

So, Pope Paul v decreed geocentrism is the true meaning of Scripture based on the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, just as Trent defined, and Vatican I confirma this infallibility of the Fathers. Now before you mouth the geocentrism of Scripture is 'not a matter of faith and morals,' the CORRECT READING OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF FAITH as Catholicism teaches, and as Cardinal Bellarmine pointed out to Galileo in 1615.

Next some more Vatican I teaching on infallibility: Under Faith, and Faith and Reason, itteaches:   

‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792.) Yes, like POPE PAUL V'S DECREE ON THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE.
   
Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8) [OLDAVID'S HERETICAL HELIOCENTRIC READING]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’  --- (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

Oh one last thing: The Oldavids' claims that the Church erred in the Galileo case, infers the 1616 decree HINDERED THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. This claim has been circulating around for centuries. Now if Oldavid is correct, that geocentrism is a scientific myth - according to his pontiff Isaac Newton - then the 1616 decree DID IMPEDE THE FREE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE.
But in his Syllabus or ERRORS, yes ERRORS (1864), Pope Pius IX said: "decrees of the Apolostic See and of the Roman Congregations [CANNOT] hinder the free progress of science." (error no 12, Modified Rationalism)


Reply
#53
cassini Wrote:What you excell at Oldavid is RHETORIC, bombast, loftiness, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, ornateness, portentousness, pomposity, boastfulness, boasting, bragging, heroics, hyperbole, extravagant language, purple prose, pompousness, sonorousness, call it whatever you like.
I call it colloquialism; a bit like "*gasp!!* The Emperor has no clothes"
Reply
#54
(12-09-2016, 05:02 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
cassini Wrote:What you excell at Oldavid is RHETORIC, bombast, loftiness, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, ornateness, portentousness, pomposity, boastfulness, boasting, bragging, heroics, hyperbole, extravagant language, purple prose, pompousness, sonorousness, call it whatever you like.
I call it colloquialism; a bit like "*gasp!!* The Emperor has no clothes"

Well done Oldavid, given you present no direct argument against the infallibility of the 1616 decree and the teachings of Trent and Vatican I, you have hit the nail on the head, you are indeed "The Emperor with no clothes"
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)