I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#61
(06-07-2019, 02:56 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Once more unless you are willing to understand a difference between Uniformitarianism and uniformity of nature, than we are talking past each other. I agree with uniformity of nature, not Uniformitarianism. Here would be a great book if you are interested. 

I'm not looking to buy books just to engage in an online discussion, but I am happy to discuss the point.

Since you've read the book and assert there is something different between "uniformitarianism" and "unity of nature" how about defining each as you understand them and then perhaps we can address the matter.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: As for dating methods and the false assumptions see my first posts under Deep Time the Creator God of the evolutionist.

I haven't discussed dating methods here. I can if you want.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: So you said "no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism."  Maybe if that is true its because that was not made popular or believed untill Darwin/Lyell.  

The Greeks long ago asserted an eternal universe, and this would be a perfect passing against them. Aristotle and Plato also both asserted an eternal universe and both were highly influential on Christian philosophy. Plato first, then Aristotle.

Seeing as St Thomas Aquinas asserts that the only we we know that there was a beginning to the universe is by revelation, if 2 Pt 3 means we must reject the permanent uniformity of natural laws since Creation, then it escaped the greatest theologians and philosophers of Christendom, all of whom would have had reason to use it against the eternity of the universe.

So, no, it didn't start with Lyell or Darwin. In fact Darwin stole his idea from the ancient Greeks, mostly from Anaxamander.

The first to interpret this passage as in the fundamentalist Protestant manner, from my reading, is George McGready Price, the self-styled "Geologist" who was a devotee of an Adventist prophetess who claimed to have seen the Creation in a series of visions. He developed the his "flood geology" as a shortcut to attack Darwin.

The general Catholic attitude at the time was pretty much indifferent to the timing of Creation, as can be seen from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decree, which said that Genesis 1 could be interpreted as literal days or as indefinite periods safely. That decree was under the most solidly anti-liberal anti-Modernist Pope the Church has had, St Pius X.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: I mention the flood because the passage mentions the flood.  

It does, but that does not really play into the discussion unless you are going to assert that the natural and physical laws of the universe changed as a result of the Flood.

Is that what you assert.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: You have a solid misunderstanding of the young earth position. I recommend you read up first from creationist rather than those who disagree with them. Here are some major creation organizations.

I've read most of it, because I used to not only accept it, but teach it. It was in continuing to study Creationism in order to perfect my arguments against those who asserted an Old Earth, that I found lots of contradictions and looked at the claims of the Old Earth side who also rejected Evolution (at least a random changes that excluded an Intelligence directing them).

The more I tried to perfect my case for Creationism, the worse it got, until I finally read up on what the Church actually taught and did some seminary studies in Scripture and Philosophy. Before that I had obtained a degree in Chemistry and in Physics and worked doing university-level research, so I'm quite familiar with both the Scriptural studies and the Science. It's be an interest of mine for a long time, and no, I don't think I've misunderstood the Young Earth position.

If you think I have, however, instead of just randomly pointing me to full websites, why don't point out the problems with what I have written? Usually that's how discussion forums work.



Thats sounds great, but if I am not mistaken I tried, and you ignored and went on with what your article said. Uniformity of nature is everything you have exspalined and we all agree with. Uniformitarianism [not biblical and refuted by science]  is- this from from wiki a liberal/evolutionist site 


In geology, uniformitarianism has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and that geological events occur at the same rate now as they have always done, though many modern geologists no longer hold to a strict gradualism.[6] Coined by William Whewell, it was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism[7] by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton in his many books including Theory of the Earth.[8] Hutton's work was later refined by scientist John Playfair and popularised by geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[9] Today, Earth's history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.







Your more than welcome to but you have claimed they show an old earth without realizing the Uniformitarianism false assumptions you make when you make such claims. I have spoken on the dating methods and I suggest your read my post on them. It gets into Uniformitarianism of course. 





You said "if 2 Pt 3 means we must reject the permanent uniformity of natural laws since Creation, then it escaped the greatest theologians and philosophers of Christendom, all of whom would have had reason to use it against the eternity of the universe." 

It is highly frustrating and i apologize when someone is unwilling to accept a clear distinction between uniformity of nature, and  Uniformitarianism. That is why I said it is pointless to continue a talk while you refuse to see  the difference. You might think we are discussing but really it cant get off the ground until you do. God invented the global flood and it was believed by the fathers as was a recent creation until the rise of Uniformitarianism and evolution. I have linked many articles for this so I wont anymore. 





You said "It does, but that does not really play into the discussion unless you are going to assert that the natural and physical laws of the universe changed as a result of the Flood.


Is that what you assert."


I am unsure if you have never disused with a creationist but a very basic understanding of our position would help. I must say it once more. It is highly frustrating and i apologize but when someone is unwilling to accept a clear distinction between uniformity of nature, and  Uniformitarianism. That is why I said it is pointless to continue a talk while you refuse to see  the difference. You might think we are discussing but really it cant get off the ground until you do



You claimed "I've read most of it, because I used to not only accept it, but teach it. It was in continuing to study Creationism in order to perfect my arguments against those who asserted an Old Earth, that I found lots of contradictions and looked at the claims of the Old Earth side who also rejected Evolution (at least a random changes that excluded an Intelligence directing them)"


So that makes me wonder, why do you seem to not understand the creation position at the most basic levels? What creationist have you been reading [or claimed to have read] and could you give me the scientific case for creation in short. I would also disagree with your creationism, it is not the creation of the bible or science. 
Reply
#62
(06-07-2019, 01:20 PM)cassini Wrote: Are you  guys denying HISTORY?

In 1616 an irreformable decree defined heliocentrism was formal heresy--FACT OF HISTORY.
...

"In 1616 an irreformable decree defined heliocentrism was formal heresy"--FACT OF HISTORY BASELESS CLAIM OF CASSINI.

There. Fixed it for you.

Cassini, you've be asked at least a dozen times, from my quick count of the past posts, to provide specific evidence to establish that 1616 Decree of the Congregation of the Index you claim over and over again is infallible, is indeed so. All you must show is that it is approved in forma specifica by the Pope. All I have asked is this one piece of evidence.

The reason for this is that it would establish that this is at least a Papal decree. From this point we could discuss what it specifically says (it does not ever mention "heresy" nor does it label heliocentrism as "formal heresy") but we're not even out of the starting gates yet. We need to know the Pope specifically made it his own for it to possibly qualify for infallibility.

Despite your dozen plus chances, you have never provided that. If it is such an historical fact, this should be easy to provide, yet you just keep assuming the very fact that needs proof as a fact, without any evidence.

You did cite other documentation from the 1630s, and a theological reports from some assessors assembled by the Holy Office just before the 1616 decree, but none of that has any bearing on the one piece of evidence you need to establish your claim. You keep changing the subject and never address that glaring problem, because it makes your whole case fall apart.

You did claim the Pope was the head of the Holy Office, so specifically approves all of its decrees (even though that is false), but to claim the 1616 decree was Papal said that the Congregation for the Index was a section of the Holy Office. In 1616 it was not, and I demonstrated your erroneous assumption.

Give a dozen chances to provide the evidence and only red herrings in reply, I think anyone with two eyes and a brain between them can see that your case consists of bare assertions without any basis in historical fact. It's laughable that you now accuse me and others of ignoring historical facts, when you get to assume them into existence.

All of this show me that you have decided that Geocentrism is your religion, and against your Ptolemaic creed you will hear no objections. If you need to re-interpret Scripture to do this, you will. If you need to claim that the Church erred and Protestants preserved the Truth, so be it. If you are pushed for evidence of what you assert from your article of Ptolemaic faith, you just cry "heresy".
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#63
AGAIN MAGISTER, HERE ARE THE FACTS OF HISTORY THAT SHOW THE 1616 DECREE WAS ACCEPTED AS A PAPAL DECREE OF THE MAGISTERIUM.


http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

In which we find;

Fr Roberts’s arguments on the authority of the 1616 ruling:
 
‘It is important to bear in mind that in the case before us the Index was called into action to give effect to the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, a Congregation that is in a very special way under Papal direction. The Pope as pope is its president. He is present at its meetings every Thursday. He has in­formed the Church that he reserves the presidency of this Congregation to himself, because of the intimate con­nection of its decisions with the preservation of the faith. But if the Pope when he acts as its president never intends to act in the capacity wherein he is divinely secured from making mistakes, how delusive is this assurance! What good does the Church get from his presidency? The Pope not divinely assisted is likely, nay, in a vast number of cases, far more likely, to decide erroneously than some of his Cardinals. And as to his superior authority, the more authoritative an erroneous decision is, the more harm it is likely to do. Either, then, the judgments in question are ex cathedrâ; or the Pope claims to decide doctrinal questions for all Catholics in a capacity in which he is liable to make mistakes, and so the Holy See may be a source of error to the Church Universal; or the Pope’s prerogative of inerrancy be­longs to him even when he is not speaking ex cathedrâ. Of course there was not, and there could not have been, the remotest intention of making geocentricism a matter of faith by the mere force of a definition; but the question the Copernican controversy raised was whether the doctrine of the sun’s diurnal movement was not already of faith in virtue of the plain state­ments of Holy Scripture. The Roman church, as John De Lugo (1583-1660) says, propounds the whole of Holy Scripture, and every part of it, to be received as the Word of God, so that to contradict the express assertion of a sacred writer is not less heresy than to contradict the definition of a general council. To say that Abraham had not two sons is not less heresy than to say that our Lord had not two wills. Unquestionably the sacred writers, in terms, ascribe diurnal movement to the sun; therefore, urged the anti-­Copernican theologian, the theory that denies that move­ment is false and heretical. The conclusion is irresistible, if the language objected is so expressed as to forbid the supposition that not real, but only apparent movement may be meant. And that it is so expressed is what Rome in effect decided, when on the one hand she pronounced the heliocentric theses false, and altogether adverse to the divine Scriptures, and on the other condemned as destructive to Catholic truth the advocacy of an opposite opinion. After this, the thoroughly submissive Catholic had no alternative but to recog­nise the heretical character of the new system; yet the decision plainly proceeded on the assumption that the matter was not open to legitimate doubt before its issue; and therefore, however clearly ex cathedrâ, it would be a judgment of a very different kind from that by which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined… On turning to Marie Dominique Bouix’s Tractatus de Curia Romana we learn that there are three kinds of Congrega­tional decrees; (1) Those that the Pope puts forth in his own name after consulting a Congregation; (2) Those that a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope’s confirmation, or express order to publish. (3) Those that a Congregation with the Pope’s sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope’s con­firmation or express order to publish. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex cathedrâ, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Zaccaria - a very great authority - even decrees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so.’
GALILEO WAS FOUND GUILTY OF SUSPICION OF HERESY. YOU WILL FIND THAT FACT IN MILLIONS OF PLACES. NOW WHAT HERESY WAS GALILEO FOUND GUILTY OF? DID THE CHURCH OF 1633 MAKE THAT UP?

HERE IS WHAT YOU ACCUSE THE CHURCH OF:

‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the Galileo case seems to me to teach in direct opposi­tion to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only scientifically false, but theologically considered, danger­ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com­mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci­sions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con­gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica­tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con­firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the Earth moves?[1]


[1] Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, p.59.

Yes and no Fr Roberts, if you can hear us now, the list you provide is irreconcilable with the divine protection of popes, the Ultramontane principles you speak of, and yes, are as false as saying the Earth moves. Indeed principle no. 3, that papal decrees may impede the progress of science, was condemned some years earlier by Pope Pius IX in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors. Let us now end this chapter with the following comment on the above by a friend:

 
‘As I read the above list I felt very unhappy because the depth of the malice hit me in the gut. Think about it - these eight conclusions form the wallpaper of the mind of pretty much every human being on Earth. The only distinction is whether or not they are consciously assented to; and whether or not they cause conscious intellectual agitation. For the vast majority of self-nominated Catholics, these conclusions lurk in the deepest abyss of the intellect and poison all action. Because they are lodged so deep, they fail to make an active stir. They simply and invisibly seep into every ideation and discolour it, so that whatever the mind draws upon in determining appropriate action has an indelible stain which evidences systemic corruption. I believe that even confirmed traditionalists harbour doubts in their minds, inarticulate doubts, like haunting phantoms, that paralyze zeal and radical Catholic action. They give the impulse and impetus to all manner of compromise with the devil, the flesh, and the world. It is no coincidence then that even the most [Catholic] are explicitly both Galilean and compromising. Without a bedrock faith in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, it is impossible to efficaciously fight any error. Galileo, as poster boy of this uber-revolution pitting science falsely so called against the Church’s teaching authority, is, objectively speaking, more evil than Luther and all the protestant destroyers combined [as Pope Urban VIII said in 1632]. Their theological errors were fertilized in the soil of corruption of nature. The idea that the Scriptures do not accurately reveal material reality - an abhorrent blasphemy - yet took hold of men with an amazingly rapid and aggressive sweep (surely this manifests longstanding interior rot very much disposing the entire paste to receive a catalyst of corruption), and now has practically every human being in its iron grip.’ ---  2014.  


Of all the documents to survive the Galilean reformation, there is none more important than the one written by Fr Benedetto Olivieri in November of 1820. This 10,000+ word report, given to Pope Pius VII, gave all his arguments for granting an imprimatur to Settele’s book that presented heliocentrism as a fact, while at the same time trying to refute the counter arguments written up by Fr Filippo Anfossi. In this report to the Pope Olivieri says:

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.'

IN OTHER WORDS, FR OLIVIERI AGREES THE 1616 DECREE WAS UNREVISABLE.' SO HE INVENTED A NON HERETICAL HELIOCENTRISM, THE ONE THAST PLACED MATERIAL HERESY INTO THE CHURCH.
Reply
#64
(06-08-2019, 08:31 AM)cassini Wrote: AGAIN MAGISTER, HERE ARE THE FACTS OF HISTORY THAT SHOW THE 1616 DECREE WAS ACCEPTED AS A PAPAL DECREE OF THE MAGISTERIUM.
And again, you ignore a simple request and put up a wall of text pasted out of a Word file on your computer, which has nothing to do with what you were asked to show.

I don't care what Fr Roberts thinks. That's not what I've asked you for. I've asked clearly for proof that the 1616 Decree was approved in forma specifica by the Pope. You again try to distract and answer a different question.

I take that as proof you cannot establish your claim, since in more than a dozen request to show one simple thing, you cannot do that and resort to distractions and tangents in reply.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#65
(06-08-2019, 11:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-08-2019, 08:31 AM)cassini Wrote: AGAIN MAGISTER, HERE ARE THE FACTS OF HISTORY THAT SHOW THE 1616 DECREE WAS ACCEPTED AS A PAPAL DECREE OF THE MAGISTERIUM.
And again, you ignore a simple request and put up a wall of text pasted out of a Word file on your computer, which has nothing to do with what you were asked to show.

I don't care what Fr Roberts thinks. That's not what I've asked you for. I've asked clearly for proof that the 1616 Decree was approved in forma specifica by the Pope. You again try to distract and answer a different question.

I take that as proof you cannot establish your claim, since in more than a dozen request to show one simple thing, you cannot do that and resort to distractions and tangents in reply.

I must end this now for it is perfectly obvious one is wasting one's time answering opinions like the above.

You want 'PROOF' that the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was a definition of faith that was accepted as such.

I am SICK giving you 'PROOF' but you are blind to them. Pope Urban VIII in Galileo's trial in 1633 provided ALL THE PROOF NEEDED to show the 1616 decree was ABSOLUTE. Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of that HERESY. Are you suggesting the Church had no authority to charge Galileo with the fixed-sun heresy?

In 1820 head man in the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was irreformable. There are TWO 'PROOFS.'

You talk of 'PROOFS' like the Church has to provide proofs that its teachings are valid. Here in 1633, and throughout christendom up to 1835, Catholics adhered to the 1616 decree by orders from Rome.
 
‘In the summer of 1633, all papal nuncios in Europe and all local inquisitors in Italy received from the Roman Inquisition copies of the sentence against Galileo and his abjuration, together with orders to publicize them. Such publicity [plus posters and flyers] was unprecedented in the annals of the Inquisition and never repeated.’[1]
 
“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same [heresy].”’[2]
    
In many cases professors of philosophy, mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial documents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Galileoism to be a serious heresy. Throughout Europe there were theologians who were relieved with the ban. For example, Andrew White records that the Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels; ‘The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be.’[3]


[1] M. A. Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, p.26.
[2] Fr Roberts ends with quote from Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.
[3] A. White: A History… p.144.

Now we have the Magisters and jovans of our time questioning the validity of the Church's condemnation, asserting they implimented a teaching that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Reply
#66
And we have the cassinis of our time ignoring Church teachings and statements that belief in a heliocentric universe isn’t heretical. 

Around and around we go.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jeeter's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#67
THE 1664 INDEX OF POPE ALEXANDER VII 

     Pope Alexander VII in 1664, in his bull " Speculatores," solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth's movement. 

     In 1664 the Index, signed by Alexander VII, stated: "We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience." This Index included earlier condemnations and all the "relevant decrees, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor, Clement." Papal Infallibility, therefore, is exerted in this Papal Bull of Alexander VII which reaffirms the condemnation of the Galileo heresy in the Index itself.

    It is obvious (and has been stated before) this situation has two points for its authority:

 1. The decrees of the Index and the Inquisition which were based on the truth of the Church's tradition, especially as in this case it rested upon the unanimity of the Fathers and the constant position of the Church; and 2. The Infallibility of the Pope, speaking in his own official capacity as Head of the Church and therefore Ex Cathedra, not defining any new dogma but simply affirming tradition.
Reply
#68
(06-09-2019, 11:28 AM)Jeeter Wrote: And we have the cassinis of our time ignoring Church teachings and statements that belief in a heliocentric universe isn’t heretical. 

Around and around we go.

I cannot believe, after all I offered, the likes of you Jeeter still do not get it.

There are no 'teachings' and 'statements' that heliocentrism is not heretical. IF THERE ARE SHOW US THEM? 

What there are are 2 decrees inferring books advocating a non-heretical heliocentrism can be printed. The exact words of the decrees are, a heliocentrism 'according to modern astronomers.'

But there are no such non heretical heliocentrisms. That idea was invented by Fr Olivieri.
Reply
#69
(06-09-2019, 01:04 PM)cassini Wrote:
(06-09-2019, 11:28 AM)Jeeter Wrote: And we have the cassinis of our time ignoring Church teachings and statements that belief in a heliocentric universe isn’t heretical. 

Around and around we go.

I cannot believe, after all I offered, the likes of you Jeeter still do not get it.

There are no 'teachings' and 'statements' that heliocentrism is not heretical. IF THERE ARE SHOW US THEM? 

What there are are 2 decrees inferring books advocating a non-heretical heliocentrism can be printed. The exact words of the decrees are, a heliocentrism 'according to modern astronomers.'

But there are no such non heretical heliocentrisms. That idea was invented by Fr Olivieri.

I’ve already pointed out when books teaching heliocentrism were removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This would mean the Church no longer considers such views heretical. 

Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus that science can’t contradict the Church. How does a heliocentric model contradict the Church’s Magisterium?
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 3 users Like Jeeter's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#70
(06-09-2019, 10:41 AM)cassini Wrote: You want 'PROOF' that the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was a definition of faith that was accepted as such.

Apparently you cannot read, or at least between the eyes and the brain your bias sets in and changes what it is you read in your mind.

I did not ask for "proof that the Decree of Pope Paul V was a definition of faith and accepted as such".

I asked for proof that the Decree of the Congregation for the Index of 1616 was approved in forma specifica by the Pope under whom it was issued, thus making it a Papal Decree.

If you cannot even get a simple request correct without re-interpretation, then I think we can easily dismiss most of the rest of your argument as unreliable as well.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)