I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(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.
Reply
(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
(Yesterday, 03:20 PM)cassini Wrote: 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?

You've been shown wrong on this cassini, as I gave several example of when the Pope did do this.

We'll take just one : Lamentabili. It was a Holy Office Decree, which means it got the first oversight of Pope St Pius X, but he wanted to issue it in his own name, which is why he then approved it in forma specifica (as can be seen on the document, and is reported in the AAS as as also is reported in Magisterial source books like Denzinger).

This is why we usually say that Lamentabili is from Pius X even though it was from the Holy Office.

There are plenty of other decrees during the same period from the Holy Office which do not have that level of approval, despite being from the Holy Office, and thus while cited in Denzinger and other sources are always given as from the Holy Office and not from Pius X.

Again, if you have to redefine and deny the normal canonical understanding of such things, it shows how weak and false your arguments are.
Reply
(Yesterday, 12:03 PM)rako Wrote:
(06-24-2019, 11:26 PM)Stanis Wrote: 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.
....

Practically speaking, even if you think the 1633 decision has any force for anyone but Galileo, it is irrelevant today.
As I understand it, maybe infallibility applies in four cases according to the Church:
1. The Scripture
2. The Ecumenical Councils
3. Specific Papal Ex-Cathedra Declarations confirmed by the Church
4. The Magisterium

However, I am Eastern Orthodox, so I am not speaking authoritatively for your Church. In the EO Church, to give a comparison, many EO theologians would say that the Scripture and Ecumenical Councils are infallible, but they have different views on the nature of the infallibility, and some might not even say that any of them are infallible.

St. Augustine's idea was that the meaning of scripture is infallible per the specific meaning that the authors intended the passages. So if the Biblical writers meant that the earth was flat or stood still, whereas the sun went around the earth, then this meaning was infallible. .........But Augustine also wrote that in his own time people couldn't be living on the other side of the world (eg. The American Indians) because they wouldn't be able to be preached to........

Personally, my belief about Physics is that, as Einstein said about Physics, "Everything is relative", so to propose that the sun goes around the earth (like the Biblical writers could have) or vice versa would both be physically correct. There have been diagrams done of the moving of the stars and sun in relation to the earth based on the geocentric theory. They are much more convoluted than the heliocentric diagrams, but they are nevertheless valid per Einstein's theory. The heliocentric model is much more sensible, but they are both valid. It's like the statement- When you jump, do you push the earth or does the earth push you? They are both true statements.

You missed one other principle of infallibility rako, where all the Fathers unanimously agree on a revelation of Scripture. If you go back and see why Pope Paul defined heliocentrism as formal heresy you will see it was because it rejected the uinanimous interpretation of all the Fathers.

Yes, relativity does exist in space. Man cannot show if heliocentrism or geocentrism is physically correct. But I belong to Roman Catholicism and if all the Fathers say geocentyrism is revealed as the true order of the universe, and a pope defines it as a revelation also, and another pope confirms this in 1633, then as a believing Catholic I will accept that revelation.

Obviously rako you are not to familiar with the history or physics of Einstein's relativity. According to him, and lots of physicists who followed him, 'physically' it matters not if the universe is H or G. Simply by reversing the movements both H and G will comply with Einstein's relativity.

Wrong. Stellar aberration showed all the stars must circle once a year. See if you can get them to do that with Einsteins relativity and it will not happen.
Reply
(Yesterday, 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
(Yesterday, 04:30 PM)cassini Wrote: 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, your expert was not so expert after all ...

You do realize that this statement undermines the whole case for Fr Roberts' book ...

He adequately proves the truth of infallibility (even though he rejects it), and of the infallibility of geocentrism (even though he rejects it), and was taken in by the alleged lie (showing he's not as good scholar as you think he is).

Interesting description of an expert, that.

(Yesterday, 04:30 PM)cassini Wrote: 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).

Yes. I mentioned it in the post above ... if you actually took the time to read it before your angry retort.

So you're willing to admit that your theological expert was actually a material heretic?

(Yesterday, 04:30 PM)cassini Wrote: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA ...

Interesting you're willing to cite the Catholic Encyclopaedia as support. You know ... the one which rejects the 1616 decree saying : ...

Quote:By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as "a noble and generous reception". The pope now reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo's disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisition.

or the one which also says :

Quote:Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

I'm glad you accept that the Catholic Encyclopaedia is a reliable source of information.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(Yesterday, 03:20 PM)cassini Wrote: '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.

It's difficult to find much info on Fr. Roberts. He is identified as Roman Catholic clergy in some articles referring to him. He was not a geocentrist. He thought the condemnation of heliocentrism was ex cathedra, and therefore an argument against papal infallibility.

Before 1870, some Catholic theologians disputed papal infallibility, but when Vatican I defined it to be so, many submitted. Those that did not generally joined Dollinger and the Old Catholics (who did exist before Vatican I).

Writings against infallibility still appeared in Fr. Roberts' name after 1870. So either he didn't submit to Vatican I, or these were republications of work he wrote before Vatican I. I don't know whether he ended up Old Catholic or Anglican or something else. 

(Yesterday, 03:14 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Could you fill us in on Roberts apostasy?

I thought I had read specifically that he became apostate, but I was probably thinking of  this paragraph from Daly's text ( The Theological Status of Heliocentrism, p.48):
Quote:Father Roberts and his like would of course snort at the idea of Catholics being commanded to reject a proposition as heretical which the Church had not reprobated by an infallible judgement, but we have every reason to distrust his standard of judgement for it was that which led him to refuse to submit to the Church’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870. Once he had taken the position that papal infallibility was not acceptable, it is not surprising that he should have done all in his power to argue that the decrees against Galileo (in his day, all but universally held to have been erroneous) ought to have been considered infallible as this would show that papal infallibility could indeed not be true. But we are safer in following the Church’s evaluation of her own infallibility than that of her enemies and of traitors from her ranks.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stanis's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
(Yesterday, 12:03 PM)rako Wrote: As I understand it, maybe infallibility applies in four cases according to the Church:
1. The Scripture
2. The Ecumenical Councils
3. Specific Papal Ex-Cathedra Declarations confirmed by the Church
4. The Magisterium

Yes, basically. Scripture is inspired, a positive impetus, so it's different than simple infallibility, which is a negative protection from error as defined by the Cathoilc Church.

Ecumenical councils can issue infallible statements, and (numerically speaking) most infallible statements have come from ecumenical councils rather than outside a council.

Vatican Council I defined papal ex cathedra infallibility, alone with several requirements that make it possible to identify papal statements as infallible or not, though there is still a grey area.

Finally, there is the ordinary and universal magisterium, which is also considered infallible by the Catholic Church. The difficulty is that it's never been defined in any detail. We could probably say (with St. Vincent of Lerins) that what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone is part of the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium, but beyond that is unclear.

Since the issue at hand (geocentrism) has clearly not been believed by everyone, always, and everywhere, I don't see geocentrists trying to argue that it is ordinary and universal magisterium. Rather, they typically argue that itt was decided ex cathedra. So that's what my reply addressed.
[-] The following 2 users Like Stanis's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
(Yesterday, 03:39 PM)cassini Wrote: Wrong. Stellar aberration showed all the stars must circle once a year. See if you can get them to do that with Einsteins relativity and it will not happen.

What do you mean here? Aberration works fine in relativity.

It raises some questions for geocentrists, however.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stanis's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)