I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-25-2019, 03:14 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-24-2019, 11:26 PM)Stanis Wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm also not taking the apostate Fr. Roberts as an authority on what is ex cathedra.

Could you fill us in on Roberts apostasy?

Since clearly Roberts is the only source cassini trusts, and against the Magisterium itself, and having claimed that Protestant heretic preserved the Truth while the Catholic Church went apostate, an understanding of the main source here would very much help complete this circle.

Wait ... I remember where I saw it. Paula Haigh wrote an article called Was it/Is it infallibile? and in footnote 11 in that article writes the following (emphasis mine) :

Quote:Rev. William W. Roberts. The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defense of Them. London: Parker & Co, 1885. Fr. Roberts was not a geocentrist; rather, he firmly believed that modern science was correct in its heliocentric views. His aim in presenting the case for the infallibility of the decrees in the Galileo condemnation and especially that of the Bull, Speculatores Domus Israel, was to dissuade the Fathers at the First Vatican Council from voting in favor of the dogmatic definition of the infallibility of the Pope. He believed the theologians and the Inquisitors, as well as Alexander VII, had erred in their actions, thus proving that the doctrine of infallibility was an erroneous one and should not be declared at the Vatican Council.

Haigh was a sedevacantist, which makes sense, since her article's purpose was to assert the infallibility of the Galileo case, like cassini, but at least she's honest enough to show that Roberts actually rejected geocentrism as false.

That makes this whole case very interesting.

Fr Roberts seems to be a heretic (at least material) who rejected to the infallibility of the Pope, who was a proponent of modern science, and firmly against geocentrism. To try to stop the definition of infallibility he decided to write a work by which he asserted that the magisterium had defined geocentrism as infallibly true, so against his own beliefs, he thought would stop the definition of infallibility.

If the council was even aware of its work, but the 1870 definition of infallibility, it seems to have definitively rejected his thesis.

So, you have a geocentrist, using a work written by someone who was firmly against geocentrism as a defense of geocentrism.

I now understand why we've gone down this rabbit hole.

Why not let others on Fisheaters decide for themselves how to view Fr Roberts' book

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Fr Roberts was as victim of the LIE that geocentrism was proven false. Based on this, and his investigastion from the Church's archives that showed him the 1616 and 1633 decrees showed the infallibility of the definition that belief in heliocentrism was formal heresy, he had no choice to reject the Dogma of infallibility of Vatican I.

So prejudiced and hateful are you and others that you JUDGE FR Roberts as a heretic.

Did any of you ever hear of MATERIAL HERESY? (emphasis added).

Formal heresy, that reserved for hell, is to reject a definition of the Church in the light of truth.
Popes since 1820 accepted heliocentrism based on the fact that they were told geocentrism was proven false and that heliocentrism was a fact of nature. Their heresy was IN IGNORANCE, and therefore MATERIAL, with no guilt attached.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA: Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: "Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected" (P.L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160).

Fr Roberts who correctly found the heliocentric heresy was defined by irreformable decree had to conclude the Vatican Dogma was wrong. He did not reject it for any other reason, so his heresy too was formal. In other words Fr Roberts was not a hertetic as you judge him.

But you lot, who are told geocentrism was never proven wrong, and that the 1616 decree was papal, cannot claim material heresy. You CHOSE to reject the never falsified 1616 decree based on intellectual pride.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 06-25-2019, 04:30 PM



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)