I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-20-2019, 04:28 PM)cassini Wrote: As alphonse will see I have placed emphasis on the question you keep asking. How many times must I point out that if it was not considered an act of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, in forma specifica, Pope Urban VIII could not have charged Galileo with heresy.

This is the first reply to which you have even addressed the in forma specifica question.

I can't read your mind, so when I ask for A and you instead provide J, because you think J proves D which presume E, which was proven by B which K considers to be suggesting the relevance of C and C could only be true if A were true, so A, I can't follow that logic.

So, thank you for at least indicating that you at least admit and recognize we need an in forma specifica approval of the Congregation of the Index decree.

I would note that by admitting this you then admit that your early claim that the Congregation of the Index was a section of the Holy Office in 1616 and all of the decrees of the Holy Office are necessarily from the Pope Himself sharing his infallibility. Is that a correct assumption? You now admit that statement was incorrect?

If so, then why would you say that Urban VIII charged Galileo with heresy? It was the Holy Office that did so, and Urban VIII never approved that condemnation in forma specifica, nor did he apply it more broadly in another Papal manner. Since I assume you are aware of the difference between Common Law jurisprudence and the Roman Rotal jurisprudence (which includes Papal decisions on juridical cases) you would know that such Private judgements, even if they are made by the Pope do not create precedents, and certainly do not engage the Magisterium (part of the Executive Power of the Pope) but the Juridical Power. Rotal and Papal judgements in juridical cases can be used as safe means of judging other cases, but do not create the same kind of precedent one finds in the U.S. and other Common Law countries. That's first year Canon Law stuff, though, so I assume you're familiar.

If you've admitted that the 1616 Decree was not automatically Papal, then neither could the Holy Office's juridical sentence, so we'd then need to find that it was approved in forma specifica also by the Pope, and that he intended to make it Magisterial, because the Holy Office, by your admission then would not possess that power of itself.

If you are not admitting that the 1616 Decree needed to be approved in forma specifica, to become Magisterial, then you've not actually provided what I was asking for.

To be clear, I'm not asking for you to make a logical conclusion, because that means assumptions that we'd have to test. I am asking for the primary source. This is absolutely normal in debates and historical studies. Secondary sources are useful, but when it comes to debating the merits of an important question one must go back to the primary autoritative source.

That is what I have asked from the beginning. I want the primary source with a claim it was

(06-20-2019, 04:28 PM)cassini Wrote:  "since an opinion [heliocentrism] can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

The sentence continued: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

You will, as I said a dozen times, find this ruling in every book written on Galileo, and in the records of the Church.

Indeed, you will, but you will also find it's not from Urban VIII (unless you're going to claim that everything from the Holy Office is from the Pope, which again, is not only provably false, but then invalidates your earlier admission).

So this wasn't the Pope rendering sentence.

Also, the document does not say when it was so defined, and you will notice that the 1616 Congregation of the Index decree does not actually do this. Nowhere in that decree is it stated that this heliocentric theory is heretical.

The only place you have provided from 1616 that does say this is a theological report from assessors of the Holy Office, which was never turned into any kind of decree. It was a report, and we have no magisterial document from it. So then we're talking about some other 1616 Decree that you've not provided here.

(06-20-2019, 04:28 PM)cassini Wrote: To be condemned as a heretic Galileo would have had to admit interior dissent to the prohibition of heliocentrism as a truth consonant with Scripture. Exterior assent such as that in his book was not enough to show what was in his heart. Without a confession, which Galileo did not admit to, the Holy Office could not assume nor condemn something it cannot know with certainty. Thus Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy based on his writings alone.

If were going to get into nitty-gritty then the decree you provide says Galileo was declared as "suspected of heresy" not that he was "condemned as a heretic". That's a very different thing.

Also, as you will certainly know from Canon Law, condemnation for heresy does not require a confession. It is established by objective exterior evidence plus the repeated refusal to deny by the person accused. What you say above about only condemned of "suspicions of heresy" because of a lack of knowing what was "in his heart" is plainly false from a Canonical standpoint. Your interlocutor here can say that with a degree of expertise, having actually studied it.

(06-20-2019, 04:28 PM)cassini Wrote: Now the above ruling - that the 1616 decree was absolute - was passed on to all papal nuncios in Europe and all local inquisitors, professors of philosophy and mathematics, together with orders to publicise them throughout the lands. Never before was any such ruling given such publicity in the history of the Inquisition.

Which ruling?

(06-20-2019, 04:28 PM)cassini Wrote: Tell me Magister, give me one example where a pope said what he defined was infallible. That is what you have been looking for before you believe anything. You will find NO EXAMPLE (emphesis Alphonse) of such a request.

I never asked for a Pope claiming what he was saying was infallible.

I already provided several example where a Pope approved a Congregational decree in forma specifica. One perfect example was the decree Lamentabili under St Pius X. This condemnation was from the Holy Office, but specifically approved by the Pope, such that we consider it was from Pius X.

So, there are examples of exactly what I asked you to provide, and you've not provided it. You only try to indirectly prove it. It seems if this decree is as important as you make it out to be it should be easy to show the primary source where you find the words "in forma specifica" or a Magisterial source which directly and unequivocally cites it as Papal.

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by MagisterMusicae - 06-21-2019, 11:57 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)