I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-24-2019, 11:26 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-22-2019, 02:12 PM)cassini Wrote: Now if I show that the record shows Pope Urban VIII personally ordered all that occurred in 1633, could we call it a day? First though I repeat:

No. Does that even show it was approved in forma specifica? I've looked up the 1633 decision in several sources and they neither list that he signed it, nor make any mention that he approved it in forma specifica. 

Approval in forma specifica would at least make it a papal act, but that's just the first step in your argument. Popes are often directly involved in writing their addresses and encyclicals. That doesn't make them all infallible.

I'm sorry, but I'm also not taking the apostate Fr. Roberts as an authority on what is ex cathedra. Infallibility was defined at Vatican I and required at least 1) the Pope exercising his supreme teaching office, 2) to define a doctrine of faith or morals, 3) for the universal church. (These could be split further but that's not immediately necessary.)

The 1633 decision on Galileo was a judicial act in relation to one person, so it's not an exercise of the teaching office. It did not define a doctrine, and did not require anything to be held by the universal church (other than perhaps that Galileo was under a censure). You would probably say it was publicized, but according to your own words it was publicized to inquisitors and professors of philosophy and mathematics, ie, NOT the faithful. It doesn't appear to meet ANY of the requirements for infallibility.

This shouldn't really be surprising. Even conservative theologians say infallibility outside a council was only used a few dozen times, and several theologians say it was only the two Marian definitions.

I suspect you're aware of J.S.Daly's thesis on heliocentrism. Daly lists a theologian saying in 1651 "as there has not been, on this matter, a definition of the sovereign pontiff...", and another in 1660 saying if a [scientific] demonstration were shown, "the Church will make no difficulty in recognizing  that these passages must be understood in a metaphorical and improper sense". Concluding "It would be highly surprising that so many theologians aware of the facts and unsympathetic to heliocentrism should have failed to note that it had been infallibly condemned if it in fact had been."

Finally, let's look at what the 1633 condemnation actually said. According to you:
(06-22-2019, 02:12 PM)cassini Wrote: 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.

So Galileo was condemned for being "suspected" of heresy, not heresy outright, for holding a doctirne. A doctirne, not several doctrines. As a judicial penalty, it must be interpreted strictly (this is normal). That means anyone who doesn't hold this one doctrine entirely would not fall under whatever condemnation you think still holds. And this one doctrine encompassed 1) the sun is in the center, 2) the sun doesn't move, 3) the earth moves. It has probably been more than 200 years since any scientist held part 1 or 2 of this.

Practically speaking, even if you think the 1633 decision has any force for anyone but Galileo, it is irrelevant today.

'No. Does that even show it was approved in forma specifica? I've looked up the 1633 decision in several sources and they neither list that he signed it, nor make any mention that he approved it in forma specifica.'

I have told you popes did not sign off their orders by way of the Holy Office because it was taken for granted as Prefect of the Holy Office the Pope had to approve the orderr before it went out in any way. I have also shown all that Pope Urban VIII did approve it in forma specifica. What part of 'in forma specifica means that the Pope has approved this document, act, or law, in a special such that no further appeal to the Pope directly is possible' do you not understand?

'I suspect you're aware of J.S.Daly's thesis on heliocentrism.'
Daly,like the Dimond Brothers are Sedevacantists. They have to reject the authority of the 1616 decree because when popes from 1835 allowed the heresy to be believed in the Church that would mean we had no pope since then. Quoting a couple of theologians in 1651 and 1660 contradicting POPE Urban VIII's '“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" reminds me of today's theologians rejecting most teaching of the Church. Popes make the rules and define them, not theologians.

'I'm sorry, but I'm also not taking the apostate Fr. Roberts as an authority on what is ex cathedra.'
Fr Roberts was the most honest Catholic priest theologian in his book. It was that heresy being accepted by Rome that caused him to reject the dogma of infallibility. Believing the LIE that popes since 1820 believed he had no option but to reject the dogma of infallibility.

Again, unless Galileo admitted he believed in the heliocentric heresy, he could not be condemned for heresy. Galileo lied to the Inquisition. But in his book he did show his bias towards heliocentriosm so was found suspect of heresy. Now don't tell us you asre questioning the decision of Pope Urbasn VIII and the Holy Office, telling us they didn't know or had the authority to find him guilty. Why did they keep Galileo in house confinement and refuse where he wanted to be buried?

No, the heresy is not irrelivant today. It has led to the worldwide apostasy the Catholioc Church is undergoing today.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 06-25-2019, 03:20 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)