I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#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


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 06-08-2019, 08:31 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)