It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:48 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 
 What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/Helio? 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/Helio?
What do the theological manuals before Vatican 2 but after 1741 say about Geocentrism and Heliocentrism? I have been trying to find an actual "explanation" by the Church or by any Saint/respected authority as to how it was possible to declare that something was condemned as formally heretical, but later it was allowed to be believed in by the faithful. How a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium was allowed to be denied and not believed in by the entire Church without any consequences.

I just don't see how you can defend infallibility with this case in mind.

How would you convert someone who knows all the details about this case? How would you get such a person to believe in infallibility?

For that matter, I don't see how you can reject the New Mass and Vatican 2 by saying they are heretical/condemned, if you were to believe the Church did the same with Heliocentrism.

In fact, almost all Novus Ordos believe that the Church can make mistakes and is not infallible because of this very case, it's abominable! They no longer believe the Church is a perfect and Divine society because of this one case with Galileo. "The Church is run by men" they tell you.


Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
It's a good question.

You will find in theology manuals the truth expressed that from time to time a doctrine can become obscured in the Church for a period. This is a delicate matter, of course. It's also true that the chief truths cannot become obscured.

That's the question of the faith itself, or the doctrine that's believed. The question of the magisterium is distinct even though obviously directly related. Three observations come to mind.

First, the Church has always maintained that the interpretation of Holy Writ is to be reconciled with truths known from reason. This principle is behind the pithy saying in relation to this present question, the Scriptures are to teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. This principle is apparent in Bellarmine's famous letter to Fr. Foscarini: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =11&t=1561 Now, science has in fact not settled its own proper question. That is, there is no scientific demonstration as yet that the sun stands still and the earth moves around it. If and when this demonstration appears, then the schools of theology can get down to some real and necessary work in relation to the question.

Second, while it is absolutely true that the common interpretation of the Fathers is equivalent to a clear teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium, in any particular case there is the possibility of dispute over fact. That is, over the factual question of precisely what the Fathers say and mean, and the conclusion from that data, which is the question of the universality of the interpretation. It's easy to see that in any given case it may be that some theologians understand various Fathers somewhat differently from how other theologians understand them, and that this honest difference of view may call into question either how the doctrine is to be formulated or merely the actual universality of a given doctrine. The Fathers were not scholastics, they did not, as a rule, write scientific theology but rather they preached and inculcated the faith using literary forms which suited their task. Have a look at how the Church reacted to the Gallican theories, essentially originated by the saintly John Gerson with the explicit admission that before his day theologians would have considered his thesis heretical. Was he condemned? No. Rome did not remain silent in the case of the Gallican notions, but she refrained from settling the controversy definitively until 1870, hundreds of years later. So a doctrine which was apparently taught by the ordinary, universal, magisterium, was permitted to become obscured in the minds of a large portion of the theologians, and the faithful, while the schools refined it so that it was ripe for definition.

Third, the condemnation of Galileo's idea was not a universal one - that is, it was not a personal act of the pope directed to the universal Church, so there is no problem with the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium if the condemnation was erroneous.

So, what have we witnessed over the past few centuries from the magisterium on this question? I would describe it as a prudent silence. The Church, mindful of the extreme danger of any premature declaration on a question which must be sifted and explicated by the schools, so that one day it may be mature for definition, is simply waiting, saying nothing. She could not do this in relation to an already defined doctrine, or one of the articles of the Creed; she can certainly do so in relation to a question apparently taught by the ordinary, universal, magisterium, but which is honestly disputed by her own theological experts. (You will not find any real discussion of this in the manuals precisely because the manuals are summaries of the body of settled doctrine, along with controversial points which bear on the chief truths of salvation. In the present case one can say that the schools are waiting for science to give its verdict before looking at the problem of Holy Writ. Science simply hasn't produced the demonstration which Bellarmine and all other intelligent and learned men have been awaiting for several hundred years, so at present there is no real problem posed for exegesis by the Galileo thesis.)

Has the salvation of the faithful been endangered by this silence? We must say no. It's not a question that affects salvation in any direct manner. It's rather a scientific question, a question of natural truth, which may or may not (probably does!) find an answer in Holy Scripture, as the Fathers virtually universally understood, and so it is a gift of God to science, which ungrateful science is not yet ready to accept, but which one day it will, to the greater glory of God and His Church.

One can see, in the light of these observations, the great disservice to truth and to the credibility of the Church which is done by those who go to extremes in their comments and interpretations of this matter. Those who insist that the Church defined the matter when she condemned Galileo create an impossible conundrum, and likewise those who blithely accept that the common interpretation of the Fathers can be tossed aside create a crisis of confidence in the Church and in the truth of Holy Writ. And I think equally problematical are the extreme commentaries which find at the bottom of all modern ills the Heliocentric theory. These commentaries essentially argue that the faith has been destroyed by a theory about which the Church remains silent. That notion is inadmissible, obviously.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Well Billot, following Franzelin and even quoting St. Robert himself, says that the condemnation against Galileo was, first, not issued by the Pope but by one of His organs, and therefore not infallible, and second that the condemnation was a prudential one, what is called de tuto (safe). It was not prudent at the time of Gagileo´s condemnation to hold that the earth moves around the sun because in one hand you had the letter of the Scriptures plus the interpretation of the Fathers, and second Galileo had failed to show any scientific evidence supporting his theory.

Later on, as science advanced, the Church withold the prudential condemnation and now it is equally free to hold any view.

I don´t know, that´s what I´ve read about. It makes sense to me.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Agree entirely, Cristian. Do you see anything in my comments that differs from Billot, Franzelin, or Bellarmine?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
I agree with most of what you said John, but I don't think the Church could one day say -if Geocentrism were to be proven true- "See, I was right!" since She already allowed the contrary to be believed in for more than 200 years.

It would have been one thing if the Church would have stood firm and held the same stance while supposed "proofs" that Heliocentrism was true would have been flung on Her face, but that's not what happened.

What has been going on is a silent U-turn, but a U-turn nonetheless, and a surrendering to "science".

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well Billot, following Franzelin and even quoting St. Robert himself, says that the condemnation against Galileo was, first, not issued by the Pope but by one of His organs, and therefore not infallible,


What does this say of the Liturgy and all the other things in this category?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
and second that the condemnation was a prudential one, what is called de tuto (safe).


Where did you get this?


Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Let me reformulate my post.

John Lane wrote:
It's a good question.

You will find in theology manuals the truth expressed that from time to time a doctrine can become obscured in the Church for a period. This is a delicate matter, of course. It's also true that the chief truths cannot become obscured.


Which are these chief truths?

John Lane wrote:
That's the question of the faith itself, or the doctrine that's believed. The question of the magisterium is distinct even though obviously directly related. Three observations come to mind.

First, the Church has always maintained that the interpretation of Holy Writ is to be reconciled with truths known from reason. This principle is behind the pithy saying in relation to this present question, the Scriptures are to teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. This principle is apparent in Bellarmine's famous letter to Fr. Foscarini: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =11&t=1561 Now, science has in fact not settled its own proper question. That is, there is no scientific demonstration as yet that the sun stands still and the earth moves around it. If and when this demonstration appears, then the schools of theology can get down to some real and necessary work in relation to the question.


So why were the books removed from the Index as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact?

John Lane wrote:
Second, while it is absolutely true that the common interpretation of the Fathers is equivalent to a clear teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium, in any particular case there is the possibility of dispute over fact. That is, over the factual question of precisely what the Fathers say and mean, and the conclusion from that data, which is the question of the universality of the interpretation. It's easy to see that in any given case it may be that some theologians understand various Fathers somewhat differently from how other theologians understand them, and that this honest difference of view may call into question either how the doctrine is to be formulated or merely the actual universality of a given doctrine. The Fathers were not scholastics, they did not, as a rule, write scientific theology but rather they preached and inculcated the faith using literary forms which suited their task.


Are you saying that it's not clear whether the Fathers unanimously taught Geocentrism? Because St. Robert Bellarmine clearly says so in his letter, and this was one of the reasons Heliocentrism was condemned in the first place.

John Lane wrote:
Have a look at how the Church reacted to the Gallican theories, essentially originated by the saintly John Gerson with the explicit admission that before his day theologians would have considered his thesis heretical. Was he condemned? No. Rome did not remain silent in the case of the Gallican notions, but she refrained from settling the controversy definitively until 1870, hundreds of years later. So a doctrine which was apparently taught by the ordinary, universal, magisterium, was permitted to become obscured in the minds of a large portion of the theologians, and the faithful, while the schools refined it so that it was ripe for definition.


But there was no specific condemnation of Gallicanism as formally heretical prior to 1870 by the Holy Office was there? Which is the case with Heliocentrism.

John Lane wrote:
Third, the condemnation of Galileo's idea was not a universal one - that is, it was not a personal act of the pope directed to the universal Church, so there is no problem with the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium if the condemnation was erroneous.


I am not done reading John Daly's work on this issue, but so far, he says it was a universal one, and that it is indisputable.

John Lane wrote:
So, what have we witnessed over the past few centuries from the magisterium on this question? I would describe it as a prudent silence. The Church, mindful of the extreme danger of any premature declaration on a question which must be sifted and explicated by the schools, so that one day it may be mature for definition, is simply waiting, saying nothing.


I already said in my other post that this just isn't the case, as the Church did in fact already issue a premature declaration, declaring it formally heretical in 1633.

John Lane wrote:
Has the salvation of the faithful been endangered by this silence? We must say no.


This has been the single most infamous incident to attack the Church's infallibility and inerrancy and the end result is Modernism and what we are experiencing now.

I can see the Modernists clearly applying their Modernism to "reconcile" this incident (oh wait, they alread have...): it was "true and necessary then, but obsolete and overcome now". In the example of Ratzinger, the Church was "anchored" in condemning Heliocentrism, but now the anchor has been raised and lowered somewhere else.

John Lane wrote:
It's rather a scientific question, a question of natural truth,


Not exclusively, according to St. Robert Bellarmine.

John Lane wrote:
One can see, in the light of these observations, the great disservice to truth and to the credibility of the Church which is done by those who go to extremes in their comments and interpretations of this matter. Those who insist that the Church defined the matter when she condemned Galileo create an impossible conundrum, and likewise those who blithely accept that the common interpretation of the Fathers can be tossed aside create a crisis of confidence in the Church and in the truth of Holy Writ. And I think equally problematical are the extreme commentaries which find at the bottom of all modern ills the Heliocentric theory. These commentaries essentially argue that the faith has been destroyed by a theory about which the Church remains silent. That notion is inadmissible, obviously.


That is precisely the point, this matter is enormous, and the reason why i see no way out of it and no way to refute a non-Catholic or novus ordo if they bring up the subject, at the moment.


St. Alphonsus died in 1787, did he ever say anything about this?


Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
Which are these chief truths?


The ones that are contained explicitly or implicitly in the Creed.

It's crucial that every Christian knows that God is three Persons in one divine nature; it is not as important that every Christian knows that there are two processions in God; it is less important again for every Christian to know the dogma of predestination. Note well: there is no suggestion here that any truth of faith may be denied without the loss of faith itself and consequent eternal damnation, merely that in the limited time available to teach individual men choices have to be made about which truths to teach first, and then most frequently reinforced, and which can be mentioned less often. Look this up in a theology manual.

Here's a basic catechism page referring to the chief truths of the faith: http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/My ... cfc002.htm

Iugiter wrote:
So why were the books removed from the Index as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact?


That "as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact" is an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Iugiter wrote:
Are you saying that it's not clear whether the Fathers unanimously taught Geocentrism?

I'm saying that such a proposition is not as clear as a solemn definition, for example. It is possible that theologians can question the universality of the agreement of the Fathers. Admit that possibility, as Bellarmine at least implictly does by saying that if a demonstration appears then we will have to look at the whole question again, and you escape the dilemma.

Iugiter wrote:
But there was no specific condemnation of Gallicanism as formally heretical prior to 1870 by the Holy Office was there?

Look it up. The popes said very strong things about Gallican errors.

Iugiter wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Third, the condemnation of Galileo's idea was not a universal one - that is, it was not a personal act of the pope directed to the universal Church, so there is no problem with the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium if the condemnation was erroneous.


I am not done reading John Daly's work on this issue, but so far, he says it was a universal one, and that it is indisputable.


Quote him.

Iugiter wrote:
I already said in my other post that this just isn't the case, as the Church did in fact already issue a premature declaration, declaring it formally heretical in 1633.


Yes, I noted that you "said" it, but you didn't prove it or even attempt to do so. What's this all about? If you want to make unsupported assertions and then object that you already settled the matter by making those assertions, you're on the wrong forum. Try Cathinfo instead.

Iugiter wrote:
This has been the single most infamous incident to attack the Church's infallibility and inerrancy and the end result is Modernism and what we are experiencing now.

That's your judgement. I haven't found a theologian who agrees.

Iugiter wrote:
John Lane wrote:
One can see, in the light of these observations, the great disservice to truth and to the credibility of the Church which is done by those who go to extremes in their comments and interpretations of this matter. Those who insist that the Church defined the matter when she condemned Galileo create an impossible conundrum, and likewise those who blithely accept that the common interpretation of the Fathers can be tossed aside create a crisis of confidence in the Church and in the truth of Holy Writ. And I think equally problematical are the extreme commentaries which find at the bottom of all modern ills the Heliocentric theory. These commentaries essentially argue that the faith has been destroyed by a theory about which the Church remains silent. That notion is inadmissible, obviously.


That is precisely the point, this matter is enormous, and the reason why i see no way out of it and no way to refute a non-Catholic or novus ordo if they bring up the subject, at the moment.

Well, I've given you a sufficient basis for a "way out of it" but you've got very strong ideas to the contrary and you don't quote any evidence, so I think we're wasting our time.

Iugiter wrote:
St. Alphonsus died in 1787, did he ever say anything about this?

Where did you get your ideas? Why not do some research before you form any opinions?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Agree entirely, Cristian. Do you see anything in my comments that differs from Billot, Franzelin, or Bellarmine?


No, except to clarify one point. In this particular case there wasn`t an unanimity of the Fathers on doctrine.

It couldn`t have been so since if it were so heliocentrism wouldn´t be a theory.

When we study the teaching of the Fathers upon a specific point we have to see if they present it as a personal opinion, if they are giving a spiritual sense of the Scriptures (usually through sermons to their faithful), etc. (Remember you can draw a dogma only from literal sense)

Pius XII in Divino Afflante says that the Church has settled but few passage of the Scriptures and there are even fewer that have been defined by the teaching of the Fathers.

Here are His words:

Quote:
47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.


I don´t think geocentrism is one of those passages of which the Pope speaks.

What do you think?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well Billot, following Franzelin and even quoting St. Robert himself, says that the condemnation against Galileo was, first, not issued by the Pope but by one of His organs, and therefore not infallible,


What does this say of the Liturgy and all the other things in this category?


Sorry, I don`t understand the question.

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
and second that the condemnation was a prudential one, what is called de tuto (safe).


Where did you get this?


Billot says it explicitly. I can scan you the Latin text if you wish or give you a Spanish translation of all this passage.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Well Billot, following Franzelin and even quoting St. Robert himself, says that the condemnation against Galileo was, first, not issued by the Pope but by one of His organs, and therefore not infallible,


What does this say of the Liturgy and all the other things in this category?


Sorry, I don`t understand the question.


Of the infallibility of the Liturgy and of similar things.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
and second that the condemnation was a prudential one, what is called de tuto (safe).


Where did you get this?


Billot says it explicitly. I can scan you the Latin text if you wish or give you a Spanish translation of all this passage.


I believe you and take your word for it, but sure a Spanish translation would be good so i could understand the matter better.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
Quote:
What does this say of the Liturgy and all the other things in this category?


Quote:
Sorry, I don`t understand the question.


Of the infallibility of the Liturgy and of similar things.


Well you`d have to quote something to the effect.

Just have in mind that many times the sense used in the liturgy is an allegorical or spiritual sense and therefore it is not intended to define anything. There are many examples on this.

Quote:
I believe you and take your word for it, but sure a Spanish translation would be good so i could understand the matter better.


I`ll post it below.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
I agree with most of what you said John, but I don't think the Church could one day say -if Geocentrism were to be proven true- "See, I was right!" since She already allowed the contrary to be believed in for more than 200 years.


When you say, she has permitted the contrary to be believed for more than 200 years, you must keep in mind that the truth you are focused on is properly one of natural science, not theology. It's only secondarily and indirectly a question of interest to the magisterium, that is insofar as it bears on the veracity of Holy Writ. The Church's position is that she doesn't mind either way whether the earth stands still or moves, but she cares absolutely that the Scriptures are held to be inerrant. So, from her perspective either the literal sense as understood by many of the Fathers is accurate scientific observation, or the earth moves and the relevant Scriptural passages are to be understood as written in a literary form accommodated to the reader's mind and aimed at expressing some other truth. Either is fine. And that's what's wrong with the modern commentators who make a big deal out of the Geocentric theory - they are putting the emphasis precisely in the wrong place, where the Church herself doesn't put it.

So, the Church could say (she wouldn’t, she is after all, a lady), “See, I was right!” whatever the scientific consensus ends up being.

My own view is that I am reasonably confident that the heliocentric theory hasn’t been proved. It’s just like evolution – something that suits a bunch of materialists who think it aids their rejection of the truth about God. So I understand the desire to attack it, but it seems to me to be a red herring. Lots of Novus Ordo and Protestant people hate evolution and expend significant energy assaulting it. It doesn’t appear to me to be doing them a great deal of good. Yet we are told that the heliocentric theory lies beneath evolution and all other shoddy modern theories as the root of them all. If that were really the case, wouldn’t the people who see through it also see through the most obvious shams of all, Protestantism and the Novus Ordo?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
This is what Billot says in his De Ecclesia, Theses XIX, vol. 1 pages 443 ff.

Quote:
“Se hace, pues, la distinción entre los decretos en los cuales se define infaliblemente una verdad especulativa, y los decretos en los cuales se provee a la seguridad de la doctrina sin venir a las definiciones formales que no siempre son convenientes, o ciertamente no son siempre necesarias. Además, para entender mejor esta distinción, podrá servir de ayuda la siguiente consideración. En efecto, todos distinguen en las cuestiones morales la verdad o falsedad especulativa de una proposición, de su seguridad o no en el orden práctico. Una cosa es decir que tal sentencia moral es vera o falsa, y otra que en la práctica es segura o no. Y similar distinción tiene también lugar con respecto a las doctrinas en orden a lo que se debe creer. La doctrina por la cual no hay una sólida probabilidad de oponerse a la regla de fe, especulativamente hablando, tal vez sea teológicamente falsa, esto es, si se toma según la relación a la regla de fe en sí misma objetivamente considerada. Pero en el orden de la licitud de defender tal doctrina es ciertamente segura, y con seguridad se puede abrazar ya que no tiene una oposición por lo menos prudentemente atendible, con aquella norma contra la cual a nadie es lícito opinar. Y por el contrario, la doctrina que se opone probabilísimamente a la regla de fe, de forma que no sea probable en modo alguno o que sea levemente probable que no se opone a la regla de fe, especulativamente hablando tal vez sea indiferente; pero hablando en orden a la licitud de opinar, no es ni segura ni libre, ya que aparece, por gravísimas razones, manchada de vicio, sin que por la contraria haya más que razones leves que no pueden mover a un hombre prudente. Por lo tanto ya no hay de dónde formarse la consciencia para poder abrazar libremente tal opinión.

Digo pues, que de aquí podemos entender qué sea dar un decreto en el cual no se defina una verdad especulativa, sino donde se provea a la seguridad en la doctrina. No es otra cosa más que decidir auténticamente que una doctrina es segura, esto es, conforme a la regla de fe, por lo menos con aquella probabilidad que basta para que alguien pueda abrazarla; o por el contrario, que una doctrina no es segura, o sea, que no es conforme a la regla de fe, por lo menos con aquella probabilidad que no tenga consigo la suficiente probabilidad de lo opuesto… Así como cuando el magisterio infalible de la Iglesia define que una proposición es errónea estamos obligados a creer que es veramente errónea en sí, tal como es definido, de la misma forma cuando las Sagradas Congregaciones declaran que una doctrina no puede enseñarse con seguridad, estamos obligados a juzgar que esta doctrina es, no digo errónea o falsa o algo semejante, sino simplemente no-segura y no adherir más a ella, ya que es no-segura. Y si declararan que una doctrina no puede ser negada “con seguridad”, debemos juzgar que esta doctrina es, no solo segura, sino que debemos también seguirla y abrazarla como segura (y no digo cierta en sí precisamente en razón de la decisión).

Pero hablando en rigor, lo que ahora no es seguro, principalmente in sensu composito de la decisión, puede luego pasar a serlo si la autoridad competente, habiendo discutido nuevamente la cuestión y teniendo en cuenta nuevas razones, pronuncia otra decisión. Es evidente que, absolutamente hablando, puede suceder que una decisión modifique otra decisión anterior. Es de la natura de las decisiones que ahora estamos considerando el que no sean sentencias definitivas e irreformables. O más bien, lo que es más importante, tal es su materia u objeto, que propia y formalmente no puede decirse que la decisión posterior reforma la precedente, ya que no hay reformación sino sobre lo que se decidió antes. Pero aquello que ahora no es seguro, teniendo en cuenta el estado presente de los argumentos, luego puede devenir seguro, al presentarse nuevas razones; y así la decisión que declara seguro lo que antes no podía tenerse con seguridad, estrictamente hablando no es un cambio de sentencia, sino una nueva declaración que no contradice la anterior.

Todas estas cosas pueden confirmarse por todo lo que sucedió en la causa de Galileo, en cuanto al decreto de la Sagrada Congregación del Índice (26 de Mayo de 1616), en la cual se declaraba contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, la sentencia de Copérnico sobre el movimiento diurno y anual de la tierra. Pues los teólogos que estaban entonces en Roma, y el mismo Belarmino que sin dudas se destacaba entre los Cardenales del S. Oficio, no dudaban en afirmar que la dicha sentencia de Copérnico no había sido censurada como contraria a la Escritura, sino por el hecho de que no se daba ninguna razón demostrativa o ciertamente grave, para legitimar la interpretación metafórica de aquellos lugares de la Escritura que hasta entonces habían sido recibidos universalmente en su sentido propio; además, los Cardenales Inquisidores estaban dispuestos a aceptar como libre y lícita la opinión, una vez que tuviera lugar la demostración misma[1]. Aquí hay un ejemplo de una opinión que entonces no era segura y que ahora es, ya que han aparecido aquellas graves razones a favor del movimiento de la tierra que entonces no existían. Pero no debe sorprendernos si principalmente en aquel tiempo donde por todas partes nacía el prurito de retorcer la Escritura en cualquier sentido, y los protestantes conturbaban toda la cristiandad con sus arbitrarias interpretaciones; no debe sorprendernos, digo, si la Sagrada Congregación del Índice proscribió con tal censura de orden práctico[2], aquella opinión en favor de la cual no había todavía ninguna grave razón, y que sin suficiente fundamento se oponía al sentido literal en que había sido entendida la Escritura por todos los filósofos y teólogos de los siglos anteriores”.


1. En nota al pie, Billot cita a Franzelin donde se trae en este sentido la cita de una carta de Honorato Faber a un defensor del sistema copernicano, y remite al mismo Franzelin para más documentos donde el mismo Belarmino es deste parecer.

2. Billot en nota al pie, especifica: “Por cierto, por el mismo hecho de que esta decisión no fue promulgada por el magisterio supremo de la Iglesia, debía entenderse y de hecho por todos fue así entendida: Contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, de forma tal que no fuese probable con probabilidad suficiente para la licitud de defender que la sentencia de Copérnico no era contraria a la Escritura. Lo cual es lo mismo que declarar la doctrina tuto teneri non posse, según el modo de hablar actualmente común de las Sagradas Congregaciones”.


_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
Which are these chief truths?


The ones that are contained explicitly or implicitly in the Creed.

It's crucial that every Christian knows that God is three Persons in one divine nature; it is not as important that every Christian knows that there are two processions in God; it is less important again for every Christian to know the dogma of predestination. Note well: there is no suggestion here that any truth of faith may be denied without the loss of faith itself and consequent eternal damnation, merely that in the limited time available to teach individual men choices have to be made about which truths to teach first, and then most frequently reinforced, and which can be mentioned less often. Look this up in a theology manual.

Here's a basic catechism page referring to the chief truths of the faith: http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/My ... cfc002.htm


Ok.

John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
So why were the books removed from the Index as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact?


That "as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact" is an unwarranted assumption on your part.


In 1741, in the face of optical proof [stellar aberration] of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo. - - - Papal Study Commission, 1992.

John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
Are you saying that it's not clear whether the Fathers unanimously taught Geocentrism?

I'm saying that such a proposition is not as clear as a solemn definition, for example. It is possible that theologians can question the universality of the agreement of the Fathers. Admit that possibility, as Bellarmine at least implictly does by saying that if a demonstration appears then we will have to look at the whole question again, and you escape the dilemma.


Yes, this made me think that it was not irreformable for a Pope, for example, when St. Robert said that.

John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Third, the condemnation of Galileo's idea was not a universal one - that is, it was not a personal act of the pope directed to the universal Church, so there is no problem with the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium if the condemnation was erroneous.


I am not done reading John Daly's work on this issue, but so far, he says it was a universal one, and that it is indisputable.


Quote him.


I will have to read it again because I couldn't find it in the quick skim that i did right now.

John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
I already said in my other post that this just isn't the case, as the Church did in fact already issue a premature declaration, declaring it formally heretical in 1633.


Yes, I noted that you "said" it, but you didn't prove it or even attempt to do so. What's this all about? If you want to make unsupported assertions and then object that you already settled the matter by making those assertions, you're on the wrong forum. Try Cathinfo instead.


I meant to say in 1616 not 1633.

You're asking me to show you proof the Church issued a premature declaration, declaring Heliocentrism formally heretical? Is this a serious question?

From Daly's article:

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely
immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not
immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable] and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.

John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
St. Alphonsus died in 1787, did he ever say anything about this?

Where did you get your ideas? Why not do some research before you form any opinions?


How do these 2 questions have anything to do with asking if St. Alphonsus said anything on the matter?

All my "ideas" or objections are the ones that have been made by other people since this whole thing started, so I'm not saying anything new.

I'm just trying to see if there's an answer to what i regard as the strongest objections in this whole case so that i know what to say if questioned about it.

I'm not looking to debate you personally and "go at it"; I sincerely want to get to the bottom of this.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
This is what Billot says in his De Ecclesia, Theses XIX, vol. 1 pages 443 ff.

Quote:
“Se hace, pues, la distinción entre los decretos en los cuales se define infaliblemente una verdad especulativa, y los decretos en los cuales se provee a la seguridad de la doctrina sin venir a las definiciones formales que no siempre son convenientes, o ciertamente no son siempre necesarias. Además, para entender mejor esta distinción, podrá servir de ayuda la siguiente consideración. En efecto, todos distinguen en las cuestiones morales la verdad o falsedad especulativa de una proposición, de su seguridad o no en el orden práctico. Una cosa es decir que tal sentencia moral es vera o falsa, y otra que en la práctica es segura o no. Y similar distinción tiene también lugar con respecto a las doctrinas en orden a lo que se debe creer. La doctrina por la cual no hay una sólida probabilidad de oponerse a la regla de fe, especulativamente hablando, tal vez sea teológicamente falsa, esto es, si se toma según la relación a la regla de fe en sí misma objetivamente considerada. Pero en el orden de la licitud de defender tal doctrina es ciertamente segura, y con seguridad se puede abrazar ya que no tiene una oposición por lo menos prudentemente atendible, con aquella norma contra la cual a nadie es lícito opinar. Y por el contrario, la doctrina que se opone probabilísimamente a la regla de fe, de forma que no sea probable en modo alguno o que sea levemente probable que no se opone a la regla de fe, especulativamente hablando tal vez sea indiferente; pero hablando en orden a la licitud de opinar, no es ni segura ni libre, ya que aparece, por gravísimas razones, manchada de vicio, sin que por la contraria haya más que razones leves que no pueden mover a un hombre prudente. Por lo tanto ya no hay de dónde formarse la consciencia para poder abrazar libremente tal opinión.

Digo pues, que de aquí podemos entender qué sea dar un decreto en el cual no se defina una verdad especulativa, sino donde se provea a la seguridad en la doctrina. No es otra cosa más que decidir auténticamente que una doctrina es segura, esto es, conforme a la regla de fe, por lo menos con aquella probabilidad que basta para que alguien pueda abrazarla; o por el contrario, que una doctrina no es segura, o sea, que no es conforme a la regla de fe, por lo menos con aquella probabilidad que no tenga consigo la suficiente probabilidad de lo opuesto… Así como cuando el magisterio infalible de la Iglesia define que una proposición es errónea estamos obligados a creer que es veramente errónea en sí, tal como es definido, de la misma forma cuando las Sagradas Congregaciones declaran que una doctrina no puede enseñarse con seguridad, estamos obligados a juzgar que esta doctrina es, no digo errónea o falsa o algo semejante, sino simplemente no-segura y no adherir más a ella, ya que es no-segura. Y si declararan que una doctrina no puede ser negada “con seguridad”, debemos juzgar que esta doctrina es, no solo segura, sino que debemos también seguirla y abrazarla como segura (y no digo cierta en sí precisamente en razón de la decisión).

Pero hablando en rigor, lo que ahora no es seguro, principalmente in sensu composito de la decisión, puede luego pasar a serlo si la autoridad competente, habiendo discutido nuevamente la cuestión y teniendo en cuenta nuevas razones, pronuncia otra decisión. Es evidente que, absolutamente hablando, puede suceder que una decisión modifique otra decisión anterior. Es de la natura de las decisiones que ahora estamos considerando el que no sean sentencias definitivas e irreformables. O más bien, lo que es más importante, tal es su materia u objeto, que propia y formalmente no puede decirse que la decisión posterior reforma la precedente, ya que no hay reformación sino sobre lo que se decidió antes. Pero aquello que ahora no es seguro, teniendo en cuenta el estado presente de los argumentos, luego puede devenir seguro, al presentarse nuevas razones; y así la decisión que declara seguro lo que antes no podía tenerse con seguridad, estrictamente hablando no es un cambio de sentencia, sino una nueva declaración que no contradice la anterior.

Todas estas cosas pueden confirmarse por todo lo que sucedió en la causa de Galileo, en cuanto al decreto de la Sagrada Congregación del Índice (26 de Mayo de 1616), en la cual se declaraba contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, la sentencia de Copérnico sobre el movimiento diurno y anual de la tierra. Pues los teólogos que estaban entonces en Roma, y el mismo Belarmino que sin dudas se destacaba entre los Cardenales del S. Oficio, no dudaban en afirmar que la dicha sentencia de Copérnico no había sido censurada como contraria a la Escritura, sino por el hecho de que no se daba ninguna razón demostrativa o ciertamente grave, para legitimar la interpretación metafórica de aquellos lugares de la Escritura que hasta entonces habían sido recibidos universalmente en su sentido propio; además, los Cardenales Inquisidores estaban dispuestos a aceptar como libre y lícita la opinión, una vez que tuviera lugar la demostración misma[1]. Aquí hay un ejemplo de una opinión que entonces no era segura y que ahora es, ya que han aparecido aquellas graves razones a favor del movimiento de la tierra que entonces no existían. Pero no debe sorprendernos si principalmente en aquel tiempo donde por todas partes nacía el prurito de retorcer la Escritura en cualquier sentido, y los protestantes conturbaban toda la cristiandad con sus arbitrarias interpretaciones; no debe sorprendernos, digo, si la Sagrada Congregación del Índice proscribió con tal censura de orden práctico[2], aquella opinión en favor de la cual no había todavía ninguna grave razón, y que sin suficiente fundamento se oponía al sentido literal en que había sido entendida la Escritura por todos los filósofos y teólogos de los siglos anteriores”.


1. En nota al pie, Billot cita a Franzelin donde se trae en este sentido la cita de una carta de Honorato Faber a un defensor del sistema copernicano, y remite al mismo Franzelin para más documentos donde el mismo Belarmino es deste parecer.

2. Billot en nota al pie, especifica: “Por cierto, por el mismo hecho de que esta decisión no fue promulgada por el magisterio supremo de la Iglesia, debía entenderse y de hecho por todos fue así entendida: Contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, de forma tal que no fuese probable con probabilidad suficiente para la licitud de defender que la sentencia de Copérnico no era contraria a la Escritura. Lo cual es lo mismo que declarar la doctrina tuto teneri non posse, según el modo de hablar actualmente común de las Sagradas Congregaciones”.



Thanks, this really helped.


Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
Thanks, this really helped.


You are welcome! :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
John Lane wrote:
That "as if Heliocentrism was a proven fact" is an unwarranted assumption on your part.


In 1741, in the face of optical proof [stellar aberration] of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo. - - - Papal Study Commission, 1992.


All that an imprimatur signifies is that there is nothing contrary to the faith in the work. So, given that this doctrine (that the earth stands still) is not the teaching of the Church, and the state of the arguments about the meaning of Holy Writ in relation to it have advanced to the point where the veracity of Holy Writ is not threatened by the contrary notion (i.e. about the motion of the earth), then the things that Galileo said are safe for a Catholic to read. The Novus "Papal Study Commission" applies non-Catholic principles to the controversy and therefore its arguments and conclusions must be disregarded.


Iugiter wrote:
You're asking me to show you proof the Church issued a premature declaration, declaring Heliocentrism formally heretical? Is this a serious question?

From Daly's article:

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely
immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not
immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable] and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.


Yes, but this was not a personal act of the Holy Father, an infallible decree, as all understood at the time. I agree that the technical language is confusing!

Iugiter wrote:
All my "ideas" or objections are the ones that have been made by other people since this whole thing started, so I'm not saying anything new.

I'm just trying to see if there's an answer to what i regard as the strongest objections in this whole case so that i know what to say if questioned about it.

I'm not looking to debate you personally and "go at it"; I sincerely want to get to the bottom of this.


Understood. Go back and have a look at the way you express yourself. You come across as dogmatic and yet you are asking for pretty basic data, as if you haven't read much and have very firm opinions. It's an irritating combination. I apologise for any offence.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:39 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Billot:

“Por cierto, por el mismo hecho de que esta decisión no fue promulgada por el magisterio supremo de la Iglesia, debía entenderse y de hecho por todos fue así entendida: Contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, de forma tal que no fuese probable con probabilidad suficiente para la licitud de defender que la sentencia de Copérnico no era contraria a la Escritura. Lo cual es lo mismo que declarar la doctrina tuto teneri non posse, según el modo de hablar actualmente común de las Sagradas Congregaciones”.

I think this is roughly (Cristian?):

"Indeed, that this decision was not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, was to be understood by all and and in fact was well understood: Contrary to Holy Scripture, in such a way that it was not probable with sufficient probability to defend the lawfulness of the notion that the opinion of Copernicus was not contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine tuto teneri non posse [not safe to hold], following the mode of speaking now common by the Sacred Congregations."

So Billot's opinion is twofold:

1. This was not an ex cathredra judgement of the Roman Pontiff, therefore not an infallible doctrinal declaration.
2. That while the language of this decision may on the face of it appear to be a judgement of the truth or falsity of doctrine as such, it was actually a judgement of the safety or non safety of a doctrine, and further, that it was the equivalent of more modern language used by Rome when she explicitly declares that a doctrine is safe or not safe to hold.

The extrinsic evidence in favour of Billot's thesis is very strong - the theologians at the time clearly did not understand that a solemn definition had been given or the controversy would have been regarded as closed for all time, and Bellarmine himself is completely clear that this wasn't the case.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Billot:

“Por cierto, por el mismo hecho de que esta decisión no fue promulgada por el magisterio supremo de la Iglesia, debía entenderse y de hecho por todos fue así entendida: Contraria a la Sagrada Escritura, de forma tal que no fuese probable con probabilidad suficiente para la licitud de defender que la sentencia de Copérnico no era contraria a la Escritura. Lo cual es lo mismo que declarar la doctrina tuto teneri non posse, según el modo de hablar actualmente común de las Sagradas Congregaciones”.

I think this is roughly (Cristian?):

"Indeed, that this decision was not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, was to be understood by all and and in fact was well understood: Contrary to Holy Scripture, in such a way that it was not probable with sufficient probability to defend the lawfulness of the notion that the opinion of Copernicus was not contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine tuto teneri non posse [not safe to hold], following the mode of speaking now common by the Sacred Congregations."


My tranlsation:

"Indeed, by the very fact that this decision wan not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, it should be understood, and in fact it was so by all: Contrary to Sacred Scripture in the sense that it wasn´t probable for the lawfulness to hold that the sentence of Copernicus wasn´t contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine "tuto doceri non posse", according the modern usage of the Sacred Congregations".

It is a bit loose translation since the Spanish is a bit complicated, but this is the idea.

Quote:
So Billot's opinion is twofold:

1. This was not an ex cathredra judgement of the Roman Pontiff, therefore not an infallible doctrinal declaration.
2. That while the language of this decision may on the face of it appear to be a judgement of the truth or falsity of doctrine as such, it was actually a judgement of the safety or non safety of a doctrine, and further, that it was the equivalent of more modern language used by Rome when she explicitly declares that a doctrine is safe or not safe to hold.

The extrinsic evidence in favour of Billot's thesis is very strong - the theologians at the time clearly did not understand that a solemn definition had been given or the controversy would have been regarded as closed for all time, and Bellarmine himself is completely clear that this wasn't the case.


Yes, that´s exactly how I see it.

I think Billot is completely right in this approach.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:14 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
My tranlsation:

"Indeed, by the very fact that this decision wan not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, it should be understood, and in fact it was so understood by all: Contrary to Sacred Scripture in the sense that it wasn´t probable for the lawfulness to hold that the sentence of Copernicus wasn´t contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine "tuto doceri non posse", according the modern usage of the Sacred Congregations".

It is a bit loose translation since the Spanish is a bit complicated, but this is the idea.


Combining them (I think you got the first part better, but the second part worse!) :).

"Indeed, by the very fact that this decision was not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, it should be understood, and in fact it was so by all: Contrary to Holy Scripture, in the sense that it was not probable with sufficient probability lawfully to hold that the opinion of Copernicus was not contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine tuto teneri non posse [not safe to hold], according the modern usage of the Sacred Congregations."

So Billot is saying that the direct object of this condemnation was a proposition such as "Galileo's notion is not contrary to Holy Scripture," rather than, for example, "The earth moves," or "the sun is stationary at the centre of the universe." And further, the condemnation was not actually a judgement of the truth or falsity of the proposition, "Galileo's notion is not contrary to Holy Scripture," but merely a judgement that at this time, given the state of the arguments, it is unsafe to hold that view (and therefore unlawful to defend that view).

Once admit that Billot is right about the object of the condemnation and you immediately see how foolish it is to argue that the Church teaches anything about the location or mobility of the earth or the sun. She does not touch these questions - her intereest is purely in the veracity of Holy Writ.

What do you think?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
My tranlsation:

"Indeed, by the very fact that this decision wan not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, it should be understood, and in fact it was so understood by all: Contrary to Sacred Scripture in the sense that it wasn´t probable for the lawfulness to hold that the sentence of Copernicus wasn´t contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine "tuto doceri non posse", according the modern usage of the Sacred Congregations".

It is a bit loose translation since the Spanish is a bit complicated, but this is the idea.


Combining them (I think you got the first part better, but the second part worse!) :).


Lol!

Quote:
"Indeed, by the very fact that this decision was not promulgated by the supreme magisterium of the Church, it should be understood, and in fact it was so by all: Contrary to Holy Scripture, in the sense that it was not probable with sufficient probability lawfully to hold that the opinion of Copernicus was not contrary to Scripture. Which is the same as declaring the doctrine tuto teneri non posse [not safe to hold], according the modern usage of the Sacred Congregations."


Much better!

Quote:
So Billot is saying that the direct object of this condemnation was a proposition such as "Galileo's notion is not contrary to Holy Scripture," rather than, for example, "The earth moves," or "the sun is stationary at the centre of the universe." And further, the condemnation was not actually a judgement of the truth or falsity of the proposition, "Galileo's notion is not contrary to Holy Scripture," but merely a judgement that at this time, given the state of the arguments, it is unsafe to hold that view (and therefore unlawful to defend that view).


I don´t know if I correctly understand the first part.

The way I understand him is: at that time it was unsafe to hold helicentrism since:

a) The letter of the Scripture and the interpretation of the Fathers are in favor of geocentrism.

b) Galileo had not advanced any proof for his theory.

Therefore there was no reason to recede from geocentrism and heliocetrism was declared unsafe.

Quote:
Once admit that Billot is right about the object of the condemnation and you immediately see how foolish it is to argue that the Church teaches anything about the location or mobility of the earth or the sun. She does not touch these questions - her intereest is purely in the veracity of Holy Writ.


Actually I think the Church was never meant to define anything about the veracity of either of those theories, She just wanted to keep safe the faith of her children.

A prudential decision is by its very nature reformable. And so that what yesterday was unsafe may today be safe and viceversa.

Perhaps you just said this and I misunderstood you! :D

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Understood. Go back and have a look at the way you express yourself. You come across as dogmatic and yet you are asking for pretty basic data, as if you haven't read much and have very firm opinions. It's an irritating combination. I apologise for any offence.


I apologize for my first posts, I wrote more with emotion rather than reason.


Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
...and Bellarmine himself is completely clear that this wasn't the case.


Just one thing, his letter to Forcarini was written in 1615, a year before the 1616 decree, and of course he died before the 1633 decree.

So what exactly do you mean here?


Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Iugiter wrote:
John Lane wrote:
...and Bellarmine himself is completely clear that this wasn't the case.


Just one thing, his letter to Forcarini was written in 1615, a year before the 1616 decree, and of course he died before the 1633 decree.

So what exactly do you mean here?


Nevermind, Billot said it.

Sorry about that.

Well, i guess this pretty much wraps it up for me, i am at peace now.

Thanks again Cristian for the Billot quote, that one really says it all.

Thanks John too for the things you said.


Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Pius XII in Divino Afflante says that the Church has settled but few passage of the Scriptures and there are even fewer that have been defined by the teaching of the Fathers.

Here are His words:

Quote:
47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.


I don´t think geocentrism is one of those passages of which the Pope speaks.

What do you think?


I think this passage is one of those which the Modernists took to be a confirmation of their historicism and abandonment of tradition in relation to Holy Writ, and conversely, one of the reasons that Monsignor Fenton is said never to have paid any attention to the encyclical. :)

It's all true, including the evil of "intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected," yet from my reading the wiser heads at the time felt that saying this in the current environment was catastrophically imprudent. Augustin Bea was rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1930 until 1959 – twenty nine years of careful undermining of the Church, in my opinion. He left that post to become a cardinal under John XXIII and founded, with Roncalli’s authority, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, an organisation that was an absolute keystone of the liberal conspiracy – supported at every turn by Roncalli – to make Vatican II what it turned out to be.

Without retailing the entire history, let it suffice to point out that this Secretariat, turned into a Conciliar Commission in 1962 by Roncalli, with all of the authority that the Commissions had in relation to the preparation and criticism of Conciliar texts, was the only Curial body run by heretics. It was the Trojan horse at Vatican II. It was Bea’s baby. Ottaviani was stymied by it, since it openly defied his authority over doctrine and intervened with its own texts addressing doctrinal matters and attacking those of the Doctrinal Commission. Roncalli ensured that Ottaviani’s complaints had no effect.

It’s said that Bea essentially wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu and one can easily believe it. Pius XII was the new Leo XIII – but Leo’s legacy was repaired by Pius X whereas Pius XII’s was amplified by John XXIII…

Read this for a summary of the history of the encyclical: http://americamagazine.org/node/148796

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Pius XII in Divino Afflante says that the Church has settled but few passage of the Scriptures and there are even fewer that have been defined by the teaching of the Fathers.

Here are His words:

Quote:
47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.


I don´t think geocentrism is one of those passages of which the Pope speaks.

What do you think?


I think this passage is one of those which the Modernists took to be a confirmation of their historicism and abandonment of tradition in relation to Holy Writ, and conversely, one of the reasons that Monsignor Fenton is said never to have paid any attention to the encyclical. :)

It's all true, including the evil of "intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected," yet from my reading the wiser heads at the time felt that saying this in the current environment was catastrophically imprudent... etc


I have to admit I completely disagree with that view :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have to admit I completely disagree with that view :)


Ah, I finally discovered you in disagreement with Monsignor Fenton! :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have to admit I completely disagree with that view :)


Ah, I finally discovered you in disagreement with Monsignor Fenton! :D


Well, if he really disagreed with Pius XII, yes, but I need more than the word of that guy :D

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:

It’s said that Bea essentially wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu and one can easily believe it. Pius XII was the new Leo XIII – but Leo’s legacy was repaired by Pius X whereas Pius XII’s was amplified by John XXIII…

Read this for a summary of the history of the encyclical: http://americamagazine.org/node/148796


I read that link to the America article. Wow, I just had no idea we were in a new 'golden age' of biblical studies since the Vatican II council. I must have missed that when I was a new convert and mistakenly picked up the NRSV Catholic edition with new gender inclusive language... :lol:

John, I am curious what you mean by the bolded part, would you care to elaborate a little on that statement ?

Thanks,

Luke


Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Luke L wrote:
John, I am curious what you mean by the bolded part, would you care to elaborate a little on that statement ?

Thanks,

Luke


Yes; what was wrong with Leo XIII?


Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Leo XIII and Pius XII seem to have been fine, holy, well-meaning, and rigorously orthodox men whose reigns resulted in a disastrous state of the Church. One could say, well circumstances were such that nobody could have done any differently and produced a different result, but Pius X proved the contrary. Vigorous action against heresy saved a dire situation and gained the Church fifty more years before the deluge. Pius X made Leo look good, if you see what I mean, whereas poor Pius XII's legacy...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
Monsignor Fenton in his diary during Vatican II: "Since the death of St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent." ("History of Vatican II" by Msgr. Giuseppe Alberigo and Rev. Joseph Komonchak, SJ., Vol. II).

I think that judgement's too harsh, although I find it hard to think well of Pius XI on some occasions...

We discussed this years ago: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?p=873 - I seem to find myself now with a view closer to Alessio's than I had back then.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
John Lane wrote:
Monsignor Fenton in his diary during Vatican II: "Since the death of St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent." ("History of Vatican II" by Msgr. Giuseppe Alberigo and Rev. Joseph Komonchak, SJ., Vol. II).

I think that judgement's too harsh, although I find it hard to think well of Pius XI on some occasions...

We discussed this years ago: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?p=873 - I seem to find myself now with a view closer to Alessio's than I had back then.


Why is it too harsh? I don't think it is a stretch to say that Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were weak. I also don't think it is inaccurate to say that John XXIII and Paul VI were liberals. So it is true that the Church was directed by weak and liberal popes. I think that is why Our Lady came to Fatima to request the Pope consecrate Russia. Had they done that as directed (along with all the Bishops of the world) this disaster could have been avoided. But BXV, PXI, and PXII did not do it and for that reason communists and masons were able to infiltrate the Church (cf. Bella Dodd's testimony before the U.S. Congress). I think Monsignor Fenton's observation is accurate.


Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pm
Posts: 52
New post Re: What do the theological manuals say about Geocentrism/He
While certainly not a theological manual, here is an interesting passage from the first chapter of The Sixth Trumpet (2002), by Solange Hertz. For context, she is speculating about the three plagues associated with the fallen angels who are released at the sounding of the Sixth Trumpet of The Apocalypse. She identifies the three plagues of these latter days as false science, liberal democracy, and universal salvationism. Though they overlap, they are generally sequential. What follows is a section from her description of the plague of false science.

The first plague, the fire of false science, broke out when Galileo proposed publicly that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way round. Until then the whole world, both Christian and pagan, had believed that our earth was the center of the universe and that all the heavens revolved around it. This is a truth of the natural order revealed by God. It is a proper object of revelation, inasmuch as it's impossible to see what's actually going on in outer space without standing outside the universe. Although geocentrism can't be proved experimentally, it can be proved theologically, for the earth was not created primarily to be man's home, but to provide the ground for the Incarnation, the central even of history whereby God would become man and reign as Christ the King at the very center of His Creation.

First revealed to Adam and then transmitted to his descendants as part of primordial tradition, the centrality of the earth is clear from the account of Creation in the book of Genesis and affirmed or implied in hundreds of passages throughout the rest of the Bible. When Galileo was summoned to appear before the Inquisition to account for his unprecedented teaching, St. Cardinal Bellarmine rigorously defended the divine revelation of this truth. The reigning Pope Paul V declared that the proposition that the sun is the center of the universe is "philosophically foolish and absurd and is formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the teaching of many texts of Holy Scripture, both according to their literal meaning and according to the common explanation and interpretation of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians." This judgment was reaffirmed as infallible by Pope Urban VIII and later by Alexander VII in his bull Speculatores Domus Israel in 1664.

As we know, Galileo recanted in order to remain in the Church, which to this day has not lifted its condemnation of his heretical theory. It remains not only unproved, but unprovable. By maintaining that the earth orbits the sun as merely one of several planets, Galileo taught not only false science, but far worse, he impugned the veracity of God's Word in Holy Scripture and Tradition. He had the effrontery to maintain that the story of the sun standing still in the Book of Josuah [sic] was mere metaphor, reflecting the ignorant belief of that day and not to be taken literally. In other words, Scripture contains error.

Inasmuch as Galileo allowed people to believe that he had actually witnessed heliocentrism through his newly invented telescope and had "proved" it mathematically, his heresy soon raged out of control, spreading through the universities like the fire that it was. Gradually gaining acceptance among the educated, the idea infected so many minds in the Church that by the 19th century books on heliocentricity were removed from the Index and were eventually allowed in Catholic schools. Not even the stupendous miracle wrought by our Lady at Fatima in 1917 could destroy belief in the new system, although she demonstrated the sun's subservient position in the heavens by sending it to earth and back again like a yo-yo on a string in the sight of over 70,000 people.

As we know, today Galileo's false theory is accepted everywhere as true and proven, and even the Pope refers to the one unique body which stands at the core of God's creation as [merely] "planet earth." The story of Joshua is relegated to fiction, and where once the errors of science were corrected by the light of Scripture, the alleged errors of Scripture are now corrected by the findings of science, which has become the final arbiter of what is true or false. In other words, science has replaced divine revelation as the ultimate source of truth.

Because God created the material universe as an immense parable fraught with supernatural meaning, there exists an intimate relation between faith and science. Tampering with man's view of the universe inevitably alters his view of God and spiritual reality ...

Incapable of attacking the faith directly, Lucifer and his think tanks inspired their tool Galileo to jumble the order of the universe in men's minds so they could be persuaded that with the sun at the center, the earth had no special importance, being merely one of the planets revolving around it, in one of any number of similar galaxies. Suddenly the heavens taught a completely different story and the way was open to speculation on an infinitely expanding, centerless universe, ending who knows where and to what purpose.



Mrs. Hertz goes on in this section to implicate Newton, Darwin (and de Chardin), Einstein, and their attendant theories as the natural and interconnected continuation of a false science rising in its ascendancy even as mankind descends into consequent confusion by it. She also shows how the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, actually encourages Catholics to "blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine," but given subject matter of the thread, this is a good place to stop.


Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:28 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.