I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-25-2019, 05:44 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-25-2019, 12:03 PM)rako Wrote: As I understand it, maybe infallibility applies in four cases according to the Church:
1. The Scripture
2. The Ecumenical Councils
3. Specific Papal Ex-Cathedra Declarations confirmed by the Church
4. The Magisterium

Yes, basically. Scripture is inspired, a positive impetus, so it's different than simple infallibility, which is a negative protection from error as defined by the Cathoilc Church.

Ecumenical councils can issue infallible statements, and (numerically speaking) most infallible statements have come from ecumenical councils rather than outside a council.

Vatican Council I defined papal ex cathedra infallibility, alone with several requirements that make it possible to identify papal statements as infallible or not, though there is still a grey area.

Finally, there is the ordinary and universal magisterium, which is also considered infallible by the Catholic Church. The difficulty is that it's never been defined in any detail. We could probably say (with St. Vincent of Lerins) that what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone is part of the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium, but beyond that is unclear.

Since the issue at hand (geocentrism) has clearly not been believed by everyone, always, and everywhere, I don't see geocentrists trying to argue that it is ordinary and universal magisterium. Rather, they typically argue that itt was decided ex cathedra. So that's what my reply addressed.

Good post stanis, worthy of reply.

The Council of Trent was convoked in 1545 in response to the Protestant reform and rebellion against various Catholic dogmas, doctrines and tenets. Its twenty five sessions lasted eighteen years and were presided over by three popes, Pope Paul III (1534-1549), Pope Julius III (1550-1555) and finally Pope Pius IV (1559-1565). Of crucial importance is session IV of April 8, 1546.
 
The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc

'Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons [like the gnostics and Magisters of this Earth], the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)
 
The Council of Trent was an infallible council. Nothing emerging from its canons and decrees can be questioned, doubted or overruled in any way. Note above then that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers is here dogmatised as without error. In the wake of the Council of Trent came The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, issued by order and approval of Pope Pius V. Of interest to this synthesis is the teaching on the Creed that begins so:
 
‘I Believe in God, Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth. He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power – attributes peculiar to the Divinity – created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created.’ The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of His fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Psa. 103:5: You fixed the Earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them…. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plants and flowers, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of creatures…. Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes.--=-Catechism of the Council of Trent: Marian Publications, 1976, pp.28, 29, 30.

Now how about that, the catechism of the Council of Trent actually taught the sun moves around the Earth based on Psalms 103:5. this preceded another dogma, that God presides over all motion. This was upheld in 1616 and 1633 when it was made formal heresy to deny this Trent teaching. But along came Galileo and Isaac Newton who said matter moves itself so you cannot have the sun move around the Earth. The world believed this heretical; elimination of God's concursus and began to deny the teachings of Trent and 1616.

Now Vatican I infallibility:

‘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 [like the Magisters of this Earth], 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)

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied [the Holy Office] , 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 [a geocentric revelation in Scripture] . 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.)
 

Now anyone calling themselves Catholic or thinking they are Catholic, had better sit up and acknowledge the greatest contradiction in the history of the Catholic Church, for in 1835 popes did allow heliocentric books to be published, read and believed by the flock, making a mockery of the Catholic Church's catechism of the Council of Trent. Trying to dismiss this rejection of the doctrine of geocentrism held by the Church since Christ founded it on the basis that the 1616 decree was not an infallible one is pathetic. There is a Catholic answer to this dilemma, but few want to know as they want to keep their solar system while thinking they are Catholic.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 12:56 PM)cassini Wrote: Now anyone calling themselves Catholic or thinking they are Catholic, had better sit up and acknowledge the greatest contradiction in the history of the Catholic Church, for in 1835 popes did allow heliocentric books to be published, read and believed by the flock, making a mockery of the Catholic Church's catechism of the Council of Trent. Trying to dismiss this rejection of the doctrine of geocentrism held by the Church since Christ founded it on the basis that the 1616 decree was not an infallible one is pathetic. There is a Catholic answer to this dilemma, but few want to know as they want to keep their solar system while thinking they are Catholic.

I know this isn't fair and I'm jumping into the middle of a debate I have no intention of participating in -

But I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously given the bolded.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 06:53 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.’ --- Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, Ch. 1,

I can't make much sense out of that post or yours. Several of the quotes seem contradictory.

But I am wondering, if someone noted an observation that disagrees with geocentrism, would you admit geocentrism has been disproven?

My impression is that you don't really hold your views on scientific grounds, so the answer would be no.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 12:59 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(06-27-2019, 12:56 PM)cassini Wrote: Now anyone calling themselves Catholic or thinking they are Catholic, had better sit up and acknowledge the greatest contradiction in the history of the Catholic Church, for in 1835 popes did allow heliocentric books to be published, read and believed by the flock, making a mockery of the Catholic Church's catechism of the Council of Trent. Trying to dismiss this rejection of the doctrine of geocentrism held by the Church since Christ founded it on the basis that the 1616 decree was not an infallible one is pathetic. There is a Catholic answer to this dilemma, but few want to know as they want to keep their solar system while thinking they are Catholic.

I know this isn't fair and I'm jumping into the middle of a debate I have no intention of participating in -

But I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously given the bolded.

No problem Filious. I too had a hard time since I first heard of the Galileo case as a lad. The story then and still is that Galileo was found to be right and the Catholic Church wrong. Tell me one other occassion when the Holy Office made a false judgement? All it takes is one error to prove the Church is not guided by the Holy Ghost. It was a life-long problem for me and my Catholic faith was at stake. But more than that, for my Catholic Church was held up to ridicule and accusations of being anti-scientific for centuries.

No matter what excuses they made i could not come to terms with this error conceded to by popes since 1820. The usual excuse is that the 1616 decree defining the heliocentric opposition to Scriptural geocentrism was not infallible. Whether it was or was not, the Church did tell the flock it was formal heresy and found Galileo guilty of suspicion of heresy. No Church claiming divine guidance could do that and continue to claim it was the true Church.

That was sixty years ago and I made it my apostolate to find out the truth. The first truth I learned was that the Church of 1616 and 1633 were not proven scientifically wrong in their defence of geocentric Scripture. Accordingly it was the church of 1741-1835 who presided over the error.

Now think about it. Since the world was told in 1905 that a geocentric revelation in Scripture was not proven wrong, someone in the Catholic Church should have put 2+2 together and restore the truth of the Galileo case. But to do that would show the 1835 U-turn was the error, and that would have been a scandal the Church could not admit to. So they let sleeping dogs lie and left the Church of 1616 and 1633 to take the rap. At Vatican II they said;

‘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

So you see Filious why I have made this my apostolate, to defend the popes and theologians, and St Robert Bellarmine from the lies that are in thousands of book, asnd millions of articles and websites. However, as you have probasbly seen from the opposition on Fisheaters, few want to know the truth and less want to believe it.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 03:13 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-27-2019, 06:53 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.’ --- Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, Ch. 1,

I can't make much sense out of that post or yours. Several of the quotes seem contradictory.

But I am wondering, if someone noted an observation that disagrees with geocentrism, would you admit geocentrism has been disproven?

My impression is that you don't really hold your views on scientific grounds, so the answer would be no.

My post was in answer to the idea that Einstein's relativity theory cannot be falsified. You wrote 'Aberration works fine in relativity.' 

I quoted Hawking above saying you cannot prove a theory but you can falsify it. Einstein's theory was conjured up to save heliocentrism from the M &M experiment that showed the Earth does not orbit around the sun. I then showed that Einstein's relativity theory is easily falsified, so science has to adhere back to the M&M theory once again that shows the Earth does not orbit the sun. Now let us see if anybody can falsify the M&M test.

I will take on any who can show me an observation that disagrees with geocentrism.

As a Catholic I hold my view on both faith and science. I know the faith and I know the science. It is Catholic teaching that Catholic truth and true science cannot contradict each other.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 03:47 PM)cassini Wrote: As a Catholic I hold my view on both faith and science. I know the faith and I know the science. It is Catholic teaching that Catholic truth and true science cannot contradict each other.

Except you're not a Catholic if you can assert that heretics preserved the "Truth" and the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(06-27-2019, 03:47 PM)cassini Wrote: I will take on any who can show me an observation that disagrees with geocentrism.

Which means, to answer Stanis' question, that it is dogma, and no matter what science could show, if it contradicts cassini, it must be a conspiratorial lie.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(06-27-2019, 03:47 PM)cassini Wrote: My post was in answer to the idea that Einstein's relativity theory cannot be falsified. You wrote 'Aberration works fine in relativity.' 

I quoted Hawking above saying you cannot prove a theory but you can falsify it.

Then you misunderstood. "Aberration works fine in relativity" means that aberration is not contrary to relativity, that is, it doesn't falsify relativity.

Would you say geocentric theory can be falsified?
Reply
(06-27-2019, 04:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-27-2019, 03:47 PM)cassini Wrote: As a Catholic I hold my view on both faith and science. I know the faith and I know the science. It is Catholic teaching that Catholic truth and true science cannot contradict each other.

Except you're not a Catholic if you can assert that heretics preserved the "Truth" and the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy.

You are great at the one-liners Magister. What I said some time ago was that it was Protestants who led the battle against the long-ages and evolutionary attack on the literal traditional understanding of Genesis while popes of the Catholic Church did nothing to fight it. No worse than that, Popes like Pius XII actually professed their belief in the Big Bang billions of years ago that led to the evolution of all. I had to read Protestant books to find the truth whereas in Humani Generis our pope was flirting with the idea that Adam's body came from pre-existing living matter. Yes, man, and consequently the body of Jesus could have originated from a monkey. No thanks, I prefer the traditional Catholic and Protestant six-day creation of all as reveakled in Genesis.

As regards the Galileasn heresy, wherein the Bible can be interpreted heliocentrically in opposition to tradition of 1835 years of Christianity and against the decrees of 1616 and 1633, well both Protestants and Catholics have fallen into heresy on that account. The way Catholicism did it in 1820 should make any calling themselves Catholic ashamed that such tricks could be used to canonically switch from heresy to orthodoxy.

There is no point denying history Magister, the fact are there in thousands of history books and in the archives of the Catholic Church showing us what happened cannot be denied. All the rhetoric in your baggage cannot change history.
Reply
(06-27-2019, 10:27 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-27-2019, 03:47 PM)cassini Wrote: My post was in answer to the idea that Einstein's relativity theory cannot be falsified. You wrote 'Aberration works fine in relativity.' 

I quoted Hawking above saying you cannot prove a theory but you can falsify it.

Then you misunderstood. "Aberration works fine in relativity" means that aberration is not contrary to relativity, that is, it doesn't falsify relativity.

Would you say geocentric theory can be falsified?

I will let Cardinal Robert Bellarmine answer your question regarding geocentrism:

I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’
Cardinal Bellarmine: Letter to Foscarini, 1615.

The 1616 decree dogmatised that the Scriptures reveal a moving sun around the Earth. A dogma is an act of faith. If it could be proven that the sun does not, or does orbit the Earth, it would not be an act of faith. I know geocentrism will never be falsified by real science. My faith tells me that. Similarly I know there are no other worlds out there, no aliens. There is only one Christ, one Earth. But Satan is about the business of destroying Catholic faith. He uses Freemasonry to achieve some of his aims. In his Morals and Dogma of 1871, Albert Pike (1809-1891), Grand Master of the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, spelled out how this new world order of heliocentrism was achieved:
 
‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succumbs to reasoning. For the two Columns of the Temple… must remain separated and be parallel to each other…. Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderance of forces.’ --- Morals and Dogma, p.306.

But how did Lucifer with his worldly help deceive even the elect of an entity infinitely more powerful than he? A study of hermetic gnosis shows us the kind of deceit involved:
 
‘[The kind that] cannot be taught by speech, nor learnt by hearing. Knowledge differing greatly from sense-perception…. Knowledge is incorporeal; the organ which it uses is the mind itself; and the mind is contrary to the body.’

And that is how this God-created geocentric world was taken from us and how it was replaced with the Copernican revolution and Galileo’s heretic reformation; by way of the mind, and once inserted therein, even though contrary to the senses, intellectual pride takes over and all these illusionary heresies become physical and mental realities.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)