I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-12-2019, 03:31 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 08:19 AM)cassini Wrote:
(06-11-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-11-2019, 06:58 AM)cassini Wrote: Magister states:

Speculatores does not mention Copernicanism anywhere in its text

Cassini answered: 

[Wall of text that does not address the original statement, and just parrots someone else's text.]

Same pattern again. Failure to actually address what you've been asked to but plenty of distractions to try to make yourself look scholarly (none of which is your own thinking, but is just taken from someone else).

All I want is primary source proof that the 1616 Decree you claimed was infallible even qualifies as a Papal decree by showing it was approved in forma specifica. One small request, that now approaching 15 requests, you've never been able to provide. But lots of quotes from this mysterious Fr Roberts, you've provided.

To paraphrase Jeeter "round and round we go".

What you are looking for Magister, does not exist within the Catholic Church. 'Proofs' of infallibility are not shouted out the window of some building in St Peter's Square. That has never happened. If so maybe you can give readers of Fisheaters an example of what you are looking for in the 1616 decree. Proof for infallibility comes in different ways and these exist in the history of the 1616 decree.

What we are dealing with here is RECORDED HISTORY. If I quote recorded history you infer I made it up or its not relevant. Galileo's trial of 1633 records Pope Urban VIII treated the 1616 as absolute. In 1664 Pope Alexander VII inserted the decree in a bull, another case demonstrating the infallibility of the 1616 decree. A Fr Roberts put this 'proof' forward in his book, a proof you totally ignore as though the bull does not include what he said was in it. Then Fr Olivieri, head man in the Holy Office, adviser to the Pope, in 1820 is recorded in his own documents admitting the 1616 decree defining formal heresy was safe and irreformable.
The final proof of an infallible irtreformable papal decree is if it has divine protection. That is evident in that no matter what happened in the 400 years of the Galileo case no pope EVER CHALLENGED THAT DECREE.

Again, perhaps you and your fans will demonstrate the kind of 'proof' of infallibility you are all looking for by giving us a few examples of such proofs for other papal decrees or dogmas.

Who's ignorant of recorded history?

It is quite easy to demonstrate that a decree of a Congregation is approved by the Pope in forma specifica, making it his own decree, and thus qualifying as a use of the Papal authority, and therefore possibly infallible.

An example of this is with St Pius X's decree against Modernism. He issued an encyclical, Pascendi, but this was followed up by a Decree of the Holy Office listing condemned Modernistic propositions, that document is universally attributed to Pius X and not the Holy Office, because he made it his own, and thus they are infallible condemnations (if the matter defined qualifies for infallibility).

Another example would be the decree of the Holy office from 7 Dec 1690 against the Jansenists. The condemned propositions were approved in forma specifica by the Pope, meaning they are condemnations of Alexander VIII and not merely the auditors of the Holy Office. This means they are Papally-defined, thus infallible, condemnations provided they meet the other criteria for infallibility (e.g. they do not only deal with disciplinary matters).

We have similar examples from the Popes around the time of the Gallileo affair, so it is not a modern thing. In 1647, the Holy Office declared heretical the idea of Martino de Barcos that there were actually two supreme heads of the Church, St Peter and St Paul. This condemnations was also approved in forma specifica as can be seen from the documents itself.

To be clear you have not cited primary sources, but the second- or third-hand opinion of one person (Fr Roberts). You continue to insist that this is correct and continually quote the same source, and never have recourse to the documentation yourself, and seem unwilling to do even the most basic research demanded of a beginning theologian. And yet without any training in theology, and without effort to look at original source documents apparently, and making basic historical errors (like claiming that the Congregation for the Index was part of the Holy Office in 1616, which is false), you are willing to make theological claims and you have only one secondary or tertiary source to back this up : Fr Robert's book which you just copy and paste out of a Word file, even when it does not actually respond to your opponent.

‘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, 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. 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.)

One of the most important of these ‘helps’ we can say was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up by Pope Paul III in 1542 and later, in 1588, and given more explicit powers by Pope Sixtus V. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

On the 22nd of June 1633, Galileo was summoned to the Convent of Minerva, and there, in the presence of Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence dictated by Pope Urban VIII included the followeing words:

"Since in no manner can an opinion be probable [NOT IRREVERSABLE (INFALLIBILITY)]that has already been declared AND DEFINED to be contrary to the ddivine Scriptures."

This Magister has to be my last word on the irreversibility of the 1616 decree. Here Rome acknowledges heliocentrism has ALREADY BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO DIVINE SCRIPTURE. This is the judgement of the Church.

Now go and contradict the Church as you like Magister and your pals. What you try to do is nothing new, it has been going on within Catholicism ever sice they fell for the lie that the subject matter was proven false.

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 06-13-2019, 06:42 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)