I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#80
Magister states:

Speculatores does not mention Copernicanism anywhere in its text

Cassini answered:

BULLARIUM ROMANUM 1664.
Super observatione Indicis librorum pro­hibitorum noviter impressi.
Alexander Papa VII, ad perpetuam rei memoriam
 
“For this purpose,” pursues the Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted…. 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 this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the Earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Cardinal Bellarmine prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epi­tome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ, the edict of August, 1634, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo di Galileo Galilei; and under the heading “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decree 5 Martii, 1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and approved with apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear, there­fore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all the faithful. Nay, more - and I call particular attention to this point - the Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of truth.”’ --- Fr Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees, p.92-3.  

 And how dioes he reply:

'If at first you can't succeed ... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! whatever that is supposded to mean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now what is under discussion here, if you can call it a discussion, is a Church teaching that confirmed an interpretation of Scripture, one as understood by all of the Fathers. History RECORDS this time in the Church and how Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy and made shut his mouth until he died.

When Newton and freemasonry conned the world into believing geocentrism was falsified or heliocentrism was proven, this proved a dilemma within Catholicism. If this was true, then a pope defined an interpretation of Scripture that was FALSE and made the Catholic world comply with this 'false' interpretation of Scripture. This made Catholicism no better than Protestantism where false readings of Scripture were put forward as TRUE.

From 1741 popes were 'advised' by the Holy Office that the ban on books promoting heliocentrism had become an embarrassment and that it was time to get rid of the ban. So it began with all but 5 books being dropped. In 1820 the 'problem' came to a head and a Fr Olivieri advised Pope Pius VII that he could drop the last 5 books and allow books on heliocentrism to be read by the flock.

Never in the history of the Church was there a case like it.  Faithful Catholics went along with this in keeping with the Catholic understanding that where a pope goes the flock must go. In those days thats how it was. In 1870 when Vatican I explained the dogma of infallibility it became perfectly clear to some that the 1616 decree met all the conditions of infallibility. Needless to say, if the 1616 decree was wrong, as they then believed, then infallibility was proven as wrong as geocentrism. Thus began a history within the Catholioc Church to DENY the papal decree of Pope Paul V as infallible or unrevisible as it was called until 1870.

Now if there was FAITH within the Church, Catholics should have been saying, 'well if it was an infallible decree
then it could NOT have been proven false.' A Fr Anfossi and others in the Holy Office in 1820 had this faith and argued the 1616 decree was nonreformable and the geocentrism of Scripture and 1616 was never proven wrong. As it turned out, from 1887 the world KNEW the infallible 1616 decree was NEVER PROVEN WRONG as it was protected by diviner inspiration. From then on there was no need to deny the 1616 infallibility.

But by then the damage was done. A pope had allowed that heresy to be accepted within Catholicism. It was a material heresy, not formal heresy because ignorance prevailed. It was then the John Henry Newmans, Magisters and Jovans began their task of dismissing the 1616 decree as of no consequence. To deny an infallible decree and argue against its infallibility is itself a kind of formal heresy. There was/is no need to deny the infallibility of the 1616 decree as it was never proven wrong.

So I could ask the Magisters and Jovans the reason why you insist in denying the 1616 decree. Are you Copernicans and Galileans or what? Let us know so we can see where you guys are coming from.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 06-11-2019, 06:58 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)