Author Topic: Robert Sungenis is a fraud  (Read 33595 times)

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20512
  • Thanked: 6158 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #150 on: October 02, 2015, 02:05:01 AM »
Cassini has been issued a 14 day ban for agenda pushing on the falsehood that is geocentrism. 

The geocentric argument relies on a number of errors, two of which are as follows. 

First, it relies on just a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge and the knowledge/ability to perform basic physics, the kind of stuff college freshmen are taught.  The absurdity that the universe tears at break-neck speed around the Earth in 24 hours is ridiculous - a bullet will rip to pieces if its speed is too high, why would we not expect the same out of rocks and stardust? 

Second, it relies on an inappropriate interpretation of magisterial powers.  Not everything that comes out of Rome is binding on the faithful, nor is it always right.  The Church has the long-standing tradition that canonical condemnations are to be interpreted strictly, not loosely.  Geocentrists apparently love to aggregate power to the 1616 and 1633 decrees, yet no one believes what is contained in those documents, as such those long-dead decrees are just that, dead.  Besides that, the Magisterium has already ruled on the 1616 and 1633 decrees - they were overturned in 1820.  Unless Sungenis bought a position in the Holy Office like he did his PhD, the point is moot. 

And the errors go on.  However, there's something to be said for not re-inventing the wheel, and tomes have already been written enough.

There is also a temporary ban on geocentrism discussions for the time being.  All threads will be locked if they discuss or being to devolve into a discussion of geocentrism.

If you would like to read more about why geocentrism is wrong, please see the following blog, but in particular these articles.


The Magisterium Rules: The Debate is Over

The Fathers Don’t Support an Immobile Earth

The Four Elements and the Four Humours: Will You Go the Distance?

The Geocentrists Have No Sense of Humour

Who Are You Going to Believe? – A Matter of Credibility

What is “Strict Interpretation”?

Geocentrism and Strict Canonical Interpretation

But How to Explain That the 1633 Decree Was Disseminated Throughout the Church?

The 1616 Report of the Theological Qualifiers Contains At Least One Error, As Even the Geocentrists Must Admit

The 1633 Decree is not a Papal Document, is not Infallible, and Therefore is Reformable

It’s All In the Translation

Geocentrism in the Fathers: A Matter of Natural Philosophy, Not Theology
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2733
  • Thanked: 436 times
  • >))))))º> † <º((((((<
  • Religion: (traditional) Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #151 on: October 02, 2015, 11:59:41 AM »
If the ancient Hebrews considered the bible to be the Word of God, why wouldn't they have accepted heliocentrism if the bible taught it?

Because it would have contradicted observable reality.

And as I keep saying: it would not have been any serious trouble if it had.  The ancient Hebrews were not savages.  This is a people who had literature, architecture, high religion, agriculture, and legal codes.  And the very scriptures which they accepted as divinely revealed told them that the universe was God's to have founded however he pleased; it was not their prerogative to question it.  "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Tell me, if thou hast understanding.  Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?"

Once again, heliocentrism can be explained to a child.  It's a clever lesson in perspective.  Even St. Robert Bellarmine conceded that both heliocentrism and geocentrism can account for our observational reality.  In either model, the sun rises and the sun sets: "appearances are saved."  So I don't understand your insistence that the ancient Hebrews were so married to "observational reality" that they would've been upset by a simple alternative description—in a text, no less, revealed by God.  If anything, if heliocentrism was true, a description of it in the bible would've made that text all the more impressive to the Jews: it would've shown them that their puny mortal "observational reality" nevertheless held up in a scheme of the cosmos far more elaborate than they could've imagined.  Wouldn't this have actually buttressed the strength of scripture when it was presented for their acceptance, rather than weakened it?

Who knows? But it wouldn't have been in accordance with the purpose of Scripture. It uses observational reality as merely a platform for divinely revealed truths of faith. Scientific truths that are at odds with this observational reality do not provide the same platform and do not serve this purpose. Therefore, they are outside the purview of Scripture. Hence, God does not need to overcome the observational reality of the age in order to communicate the occurance of the miracle. It serves no practical purpose. If science became an issue for us later it is only on account of our loss of perspective, our undue hyper-literalization, and our egregioius anthropomorphization of everything contained in Scripture.

Quote
And kindly, refrain from accusing me of expecting the bible to be a science textbook.  My point is merely this: the bible already does contain a description of the cosmos.  If geocentrism is false, why then would the bible suggest it, since there doesn't seem grounds for your assertion that the Hebrews would've rejected a heliocentric description?

Because the bible is written from man's perspective for man's understanding. God used our view of the cosmos as a medium for communicating divinely-revealed truths of the faith that exceed nature. He did not use the means as the end, which is what your argument is saying. Observational reality is the means; truths are the end. You are making the end and purpose of Scripture equal to the means, as though even the arbitrary symbols of the languages and the sounds used to pronounce them are sacred of themselves. They are simply means to an end. In the same way, observational reality assumed by those of that era as a platform upon which to build the truths of revelation. The truths don't change even if we substitute one platform for another. But platforms are outside of the purview and purpose of Scripture. Again, they are simply means that are useful for our understanding. As those means change according to the discoveries of man, we can substitute one for another, but regardless of which platform we set the truth on, it is still the same truth. You are conflating the purpose of a book with the means by which it communicates that purpose to us.

Quote
Quote
Why distract the spirit with observationally-false scientific facts that are outside the scope and purpose of revelation? That would defeat the whole purpose of revelation.

That question cuts both ways: why "distract the spirit" with a major historical controversy (and its aftermath which included a shamefaced reversal of a formal condemnation for heresy)?  And consider how complicated and legalistic the explanation is in order to classify the Galileo case as a misunderstanding: "infallible" against "infallibly safe," "contrary to faith" against "heretical."  If having to delve far into the nuanced intricacies of magisterial pronouncements isn't a distraction, then I don't know what is.

God didn't distract us; we distracted ourselves by losing perspective on the purpose of Scripture. God is not obligated to prevent us from distracting ourselves and losing focus, especially when doing so requires Him to extend the function of revelation beyond its purpose.

Quote
Quote
Again, where's the Pythagorean theorem, the blueprint for an automobile, or the remedy for diseases that Christ was curing at the time?

Why did you ask that "again" when I had already answered it?  Those examples would not be of the same nature as geocentrism.  Those questions would be for people who demand that the bible actually be a science textbook.  That is not my demand, however; nor was it St. Robert's.  I've said this in my previous posts in this thread: the bible is not a science textbook, nor is that the expectation we have for it.  But what we do rely on is that it is inerrant in the subjects it does treat.  If an inerrant text describes for us a cosmology, then that cosmology is correct.  Should there be any doubts about whether or not a passage is literal, we look to the traditional reading of the texts, and the consensus of the Early Church Fathers. 

In matters theological, yes; in matters of perspective, it is all relative.

Quote
This is why Galileo was condemned for contradicting sacred scripture.  It's that simple.

I already explained how discliplinary condemnations are not infallible. If the meaning of Scripture includes scientific perspectives, and if we turn perspective into a matter of faith as though there is only one perspective, then any condemnation that flows from such an interpretation cannot be infallible any more than a person who calls a cylinder a circle can be condemned for not seeing it as a square. It depends on your point of view. If the cosmos is a cylinder, and if depending on your point of view it is either a cirlce or a square, then neither can be a matter of faith.

Quote
Now, if the cosmology is not correct, then that would be a massive problem.  And that's the precise problem St. Robert was considering, when he averred he didn't see why the Holy Spirit would describe something that would later be demonstrated as false—or at the very least, hugely problematic for the Church.  To call it a "distraction" is putting it mildly.

Please see above. It is only a problem because we didn't consider the matter as a matter of perspective but as each cosmology being mutually exclusive of the other. Now we know that it all depends on where one places the reference point.

Quote
Quote
Why did He use a mustard seed to illustrate the Church if it is not in fact the biggest tree? ...because it was a common tree familiar to the Jews known for being comparably large. But you would arge, "But why not just use a Giant Redwood as an example and forget whether they even knew what that was?"

If that passage was any kind of a problem, INPEFESS, then we wouldn't be discussing the Galileo affair.  (Instead we would be discussing some 16th c. Italian botanist who arrogantly demonstrated a variance between plant science and the gospels.  But we aren't).  That passage presents little difficulty in the first place; the redwood is not an herb tree.  It is a simply a matter of taxonomy (which can and does change), and not perspective or cosmology.

You are hyperextending the function of the analogy beyond its purpose. Only one aspect of the analogy need apply in order to illustrate the point. In this case, God is using a less perfect illustration in accordance with what knowledge we had proximately available to us at the time. We could have been "wowed" by His knowledge of botany in areas we have never been to, but that would have distracted us from the purpose of the parable. He therefore tailored His parable to the observationally-true reality of those people in that place at that time. It matters not that there was no controversy because there could be other controversies in the future about trivial scientific discrepancies. There was no Galileo controversay until it happened, so I could make the same argument before the 17th century that since it hadn't happened yet, it doesn't matter. The point is that the principle is the same, regardless of whether anyone disputes it yet or not. You are arguing from hindsight and historical consequence, not from principle.

Quote
And finally, since history offers us no great mustard tree controversy, we don't have to wonder about that particular passage (or whatever other passages you want to throw out.  Are you and Mattock perusing the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for these, or what?  It's curious that the geocentrists are being asked to defend every last unrelated line of scripture, as if that was the topic.  Maybe it's just me, but it comes off as a diversionary tactic).

This means more than you know. You have made my point for me far better than I could have myself.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<

 

Offline INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2733
  • Thanked: 436 times
  • >))))))º> † <º((((((<
  • Religion: (traditional) Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #152 on: October 03, 2015, 11:47:31 AM »
Whoops. I had been away from the forum for at least a week, so I wasn't aware of the recent developments and prohibitions. I apologize for not following up before picking up where I had left off and for continuing to discuss a now-banned topic.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<

 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20512
  • Thanked: 6158 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #153 on: October 03, 2015, 11:48:11 AM »
No worries, INP

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 1767 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #154 on: October 05, 2015, 03:46:25 PM »
Thanks for your reply, INPEFESS.  I actually don’t mind that there’s a moratorium on geocentrism now, because I think we were just repeating ourselves to each other.  Quarem and I seem to be in a similar rut, but at least we’ve gone far enough afield from whether the sun orbits the earth that my response to him (which I couldn’t submit for several days because I got banned) doesn’t touch on the subject at all.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 1767 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #155 on: October 05, 2015, 03:49:40 PM »
Tradition isn't comparatively objective and doesn't have much utility as an epistemology.  As for objectivity, the Orthodox (at least many of which) who you say have done "pretty okay" now officially allow divorce and contraception.  Divorce and remarriage, they say, is according to tradition.  Who is to contradict them?
 
Well, that’s an interesting point to bring up.  It’s clear that the Orthodox are far from perfect (although I, unlike you, have long since given up looking for absolute perfection).  But you have to be careful here.  I don’t think the divorce issue is any longer a bludgeon you can hit them with, now that swift & easy annulments are the order of the day in the Catholic Church.  Annulments have simply become divorce by another name.  And give the Orthodox some credit: at least they insist that a second marriage must be entered into with a penitential character and subdued ceremonies.  Whereas we’ll have the ubiquitous sight of giddy, cherubic, Dolan-esque priests hee-hawing with couples entering shamelessly into their second marriages, with the full pomp of chamber quartets flogging away at Pachelbel’s Canon and flower girls strewing petals down the aisle.  All because an Argentine lunatic has now permitted the Vatican to generously sprinkle enough pixie dust around to make all those inconvenient first marriages magically disappear.  If you don’t think this has become a farce, then I don’t know what.  It’s pretty obvious that both sides have faulted on the indissolubility of marriage, but I have more respect for the somber honesty of the Orthodox than I do for the cheery pharisaism of modernist Rome piping, “it’s not divorce—it’s annulment!”  These word games have got to be transparently lame to everyone but maybe the lamest of Novus Ordo papalologists.

But here’s a challenge for you, Quarem.  Do you think there exists a single prominent Russian Orthodox theologian who is on record as making a comment as blasphemous as Fr. Timothy Radcliffe’s when he said homosexuality can be “Eucharistic”?  Perhaps there might be one or two on the extreme liberal fringe of Russian Orthodoxy (though I doubt it), but are there any on the same level as a Catholic priest appointed to a Pontifical Council which is specifically dedicated to promoting the social teachings of the Church?  Because that’s what we have to deal with.  I didn’t think anything could surprise me anymore.  But when a theologian says gay sex “can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift,” and rather than getting swiftly excommunicated (which surely would be too much to expect these days) instead gets promoted to a position within the Vatican, then I can honestly find little left to say against the Byzantines.  At least they don’t appear to be as infected with what has been aptly called the “rampant faggotry” among our own shepherds.

 :ack:

And who do you follow on grace as "tradition": St. Augustine or the Eastern Fathers?  Many of the Eastern Fathers were in fact semi-Pelagian.  As for epistemology, tradition is, at bottom, a mere argumentum ad populum fallacy.  The "traditional" beliefs were that all mental illness was caused by demons and physical illness was caused by bad humors, and that leeches would be beneficial, and that comets were a sign of impending Divine wrath.

It’s not my demand that tradition affirm everything from grace on down to leeches.  On grace I follow St. Augustine: a suitably antiquated teaching based on a reading of St. Paul against Pelagius.  I acknowledge that this is a Latin theology; such is my patrimony.  Likewise the Byzantines have theirs.  In a fraternal spirit I’m okay with the differences; the common agreement is that Pelagius introduced novelty.  Tradition can’t buttress everything, but it can definitely tell you where innovation is.  That’s its function.

It’s your side which seems to insist that everything has to be monolithic and codified.  History suggests the Church was not always so exacting.  Clearly, there are variations in the theology of grace between East and West.  And yet, these variations were more or less tolerated for nearly a millennium.  Even disagreement on the filioque persisted for centuries before the formal schism.  St. Maximus the Confessor believed that both sides of the filioque ought to have been more conciliatory toward each other; it was a debate, he believed, worthy of open discussion instead of open hostilities.  Sadly, hostility prevailed.  But maybe you need to consider whether every last piece of doctrinal minutiae was really supposed to be hashed out to precision by harsh logicians, or whether maybe theological speculation could withstand a healthy variety within the parameters of orthodoxy—that some aspects of the faith will remain a mystery to us during our earthly lives.  The blessed in heaven see God “face to face” in perfect understanding.  That’s a reward worth striving for.  But some people, apparently, are impatient with only being able to see things “through a glass darkly.”  Speculation isn’t certain enough for them.  They have to have it all figured out down to the very last angel dancing on the head of a pin.  They have to force universality onto beliefs which were never truly universal.  Sic transit gloria mundi.

This is an irritating habit in traditionalist discussions.  "St. So-and-So disagrees with you, so you must be wrong!!!" full stop, without the intellectual bother of actually having to analyze the arguments.

I never said it decisively proved you wrong.  I only brought those quotes out to counter your claim that making tradition the standard is “simply absurd.”  You are certainly welcome to your opinion.  All I was saying is that your “growth in understanding” hermeneutic seems perversely Hegelian to me, especially when compared with those more conservative ideas of St. Leo and St. Vincent.  It wasn’t intended as a “you must be wrong!!!” bellow, but rather a small sampling offered for your consideration.  I just don’t think they believed, in the Early Church, in a progressive “development of doctrine” scheme as bold as the one you argue for.  I could be wrong.  Trust me, I’m not interested in stomping anyone’s head to the curb with the brute force of how wrong or how stupid I believe them to be.  There are enough people like that around here already.  Brandishing hatchets, wielding axes.  I’ll leave the anger and the hysterics to the self-appointed mallei haereticorum.  (I probably got the Latin wrong).

As for your argument about my hermeneutic "ending in Vatican II", as though that is the argument to end all arguments, what is the hermeneutic by which Vatican II is judged?

It is, though, very nearly “the argument to end all arguments.”  Maybe on Catholic Answers, Quarem, you could find more people sympathetic to your position, but if there’s one thing pretty much everyone on this forum can agree on, it’s that Vatican II is a total bust.  And I’ve told you several times now what the hermeneutic is by which we judge Vatican II: the fact that it’s not traditional.  We have been over this and over this, you and I.  You’ve said, “but that’s Protestant.  You’re using your private judgement against the Church.”  And I’ve said, “correct.  Conceded.  That is the paradox of traditional Catholicism.  Deny it, accept it, struggle with it, or claim it’s a lousy hermeneutic.  But this has already been pointed out, thanks.”

And I’ve conceded, also, that this hermeneutic is tinged with subjectivism.  But as far as I’m concerned, it sure beats the alternative.  Remember when you were making threads with titles like “doesn’t Vatican II prove the Church has defected?”  Those were the days when we could almost appreciate where you were coming from.  Because Vatican II is hugely problematic.  That’s why we’re all here.  But now you tell us that Vatican II is actually a beautiful “growth in understanding” according to a logical epistemology.  And at this point, I’m willing let you have that.  If that’s what gives you comfort, then what can I say?  John Lennon once wrote a Bowie-esque 70s soul-funk song called “Whatever Gets You thru the Night.”  Indeed—whatever gets you through.  Milk your epistemology for as much succor as it will yield.  I can only imagine that having all one’s doubts lifted is a euphoric feeling.  I envy you your solace.  But I cannot go with you as you cut your fierce hermeneutical path straight to the Novus Ordo.

So I don’t know if you want to keep pushing this.  Let's just let it go.  We keep repeating ourselves; the volley has gone stale.  Only try to appreciate that not everyone approaches the faith like a logic puzzle.  Some of us just don’t have the Thomistic bent.  The great sequence for Pentecost goes Veni, Sancte Spiritus (“Come, O Holy Spirit,” not “Come, O Logical Epistemology”).  For me, the thought of some bearded old Russian starets contemplating the louring gray sky as he paces the cursus of a wood-hewn rural monastery in a muddy pasture ringed by birch forest is more inspiring than the thought of a thick book of logical propositions and wordy argumentations, the midrash of which is delivered by its clean-shaven devotees from the pulpits of rococo churches.  You will surely think I’m being dreamy and illogical, giving myself over to what inspires me.  As you already said, “if the hermeneutic you apply merely depends on what feels good, then religion has devolved into mere subjectivity.”  And perhaps it has.  Perhaps I’m going with my gut too much, strolling the idyllic trail of subjectivity straight into a Slavic backwater of eight-pointed crosses and unlettered peasantry, until I’m walking that cursus in the fog with the elderly Russian monk.  But as I replied to you earlier, it would “logically follow” from your proposition that I might end up in a religion I found totally distasteful, on the basis of perfect submission.  To which I can only say, again: no thanks.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 04:15:03 PM by Pon de Replay »
 
The following users thanked this post: Larry, Lydia Purpuraria

Offline Aquila

  • Death to Democracy
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #156 on: October 07, 2015, 07:03:26 AM »
I realize that the thread has moved away from the OP considerably at this point, and do not particularly want to return it to the original topic of discussion (also, I don't have time this week to carry on a running argument with anyone). However, I found this selection from an article written by John Daly that I thought should be available on the forum. The basic point is that even geocentrist theologians at the time of the Galileo affair did not believe that the Church had ruled infallibly against heliocentrism, and that it was possible to interpret Scripture in a non-literal manner if modern cosmology was correct:

Quote
3. Numerous theologians well placed to be aware of the facts and unsuspected of any
favour for heliocentrism nevertheless did not believe the condemnations of heliocentrism to
have been infallible.
( i ) In 1626 Father Tanner, S.J. quoted the 1616 decree in his Theologia
Scholastica, II, 6, 4, concluding from it simply that heliocentrism “cannot safely be
defended.”
( ii ) In 1631 Fromont, Professor of Theology at Louvain and ardent adversary
of Galileo declared that he could not consider heliocentrism as having been
definitively judged “unless I see something more precise emerging from the head of
the Church himself.” (Anti-Aristarchus, Antwerp, 1631, p.17)
( iii ) In 1651 the infallible character of the condemnations of heliocentrism
published up to that date was clearly denied by the Church’s greatest anti-heliocentric
champion, the Jesuit astronomer and theologian Riccioli who wrote in his Almagestum
Novum (Bologna, 1651, t.I, p.52) that “as there has not been, on this matter, a
definition of the sovereign pontiff, or of a council directed and approved by him, it is
not of faith that the sun turns and that the earth is immovable, at least by virtue of the
decree itself, but at most exclusively because of the authority of Holy Scripture, for
those who are morally certain that God has thus revealed it. However, all we
Catholics are obliged by the virtue of prudence and obedience to admit what has been
decreed or at least not to teach the contrary in an absolute manner.” (Italics added.)
( iv ) In 1660, Father Fabri, S.J. wrote: “The partisans of Galileo have often
been asked if they can furnish a demonstration of the movement of the earth; they
have never dared to reply in the affirmative. There is therefore no reason why the
Church should not understand, and command [her children] to understand, in their
proper sense the [relevant] passages of Scripture until the contrary opinion shall have
been demonstrated. If you find this demonstration, something I find difficult to
believe, then the Church will make no difficulty in recognising that these passages
must be understood in a metaphorical and improper sense.” (Brevis Annotatio in
Systema Saturninum Chr. Hugenii, Rome, 1660, p.32)
Other examples could be added to this list.

Value of this argument. 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. Modern theologians, being almost
unanimously heliocentrists themselves and under the impression that heliocentrism has been
more or less scientifically proved, may be suspected of stretching the evidence to fit that
which they wish to believe, but those quoted had no such motive. Nevertheless some
theologians, as shown above, can be quoted as seeming to tend more or less for the opposite
view and so the argument is not decisive. What it does decisively show is that if heliocentrism
has been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, there has never been any point in the history
of the Church when this has been universally recognised to be the case and nearly four
centuries have now passed during which hardly any Catholic has correctly realised the true
theological status of heliocentrism.

4. Every act of the Holy See relative to the condemnation of heliocentrism between 1616
and 1665 is indirectly but unmistakably founded on the original unanimous judgement of the
theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office (24 February 1616) censuring heliocentrism as
heretical. In so far as the Church condemned heliocentrism as heretical she did this by
making her own the original, non-authoritative censure of the theologian-qualifiers. However,
it is not at all apparent that the Holy See considered in 1616 that Galileo would have been a
heretic even if he had obstinately continued to believe in heliocentrism after being ordered to
reject it. For in fact St. Robert Bellarmine was told by the Pope to warn Galileo to abandon
heliocentrism but, if he refused to obey this warning, to command him to abstain from
teaching, defending or treating of heliocentrism, and only if he failed to acquiesce in this
instruction also was he to be imprisoned. Now if Pope Paul V and St. Robert Bellarmine had
considered the heretical status of heliocentrism to be infallibly certain, it would inevitably
follow that by refusing to abandon it, Galileo would have made himself a pertinacious heretic.
It seems inconceivable that in this case he would not have been promptly tried for heresy – it
is unknown in the history of the Church that anyone refusing to believe a dogma which the
authorities of the Church instruct him is a dogma, should be told that in view of his refusal to
believe Catholic doctrine he should merely abstain from public discourse on the topic and
keep his heretical views to himself, without any mention being made of the fact that he would
have incurred automatic excommunication irrespective of whether or not he delivered public
lectures or wrote books and treatises in favour of his heresy. Even the penalty of
imprisonment which was threatened in case he should continue not only to believe
heliocentrism but publicly to defend it also, is not in conformity with the idea that he would
have made himself by this act a heretic in the Church’s eyes, for obstinate heretics, at that date
and place, were not imprisoned but put to death.

Value of this argument. It is mysterious that Galileo should have been warned that
heliocentrism was heretical but then told that if he continued to hold it he would not be treated
as a heretic but merely ordered to keep silence. This anomaly (and it is not the only one in the
proceedings of 1616 – see Brodrick, James, S.J.: The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis
Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J. 1542-1621, Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1928, volume 2, p.368-
370) doubtless presents a difficulty for those who hold heliocentrism to be infallibly
condemned, but not, we think, an overwhelming one since there is every evidence that in
1633 Galileo was condemned as vehemently suspect of being a heretic for holding
heliocentrism and escaped condemnation as a heretic only because of the tiny shred of doubt
which remained as to whether he had interiorly consented to heliocentric doctrine between
1616 and 1633. The easiest solution to the anomaly seems to be the supposition that the orders
given to Galileo in 1616 were carelessly formulated in respect of the consequences should he
fail to acquiesce in the geocentric position he was instructed to embrace. This would be not
surprising since at that time Galileo had shown no sign of insubordination to the Church’s
teaching authority and there was every reason to suppose that he would submit at once to
Catholic doctrine when informed what the Holy See had declared it to be on this point. Indeed
Galileo himself, in 1633, while claiming to have forgotten that he had been banned from
teaching on the subject of heliocentrism, never attempted for a moment to argue that, if he
had continued to hold heliocentrism after 1616, he would not therefore have been a heretic.

5. Subsequently to all the decrees which condemned heliocentrism, the Church came to
authorise belief in the doctrine which it had previously condemned. This it did especially
under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757 when heliocentric writings were deleted from the Index of
Forbidden Books, in 1820 when Pope Pius VII granted the appeal of Canon Settele against the
decision of Monsignor Anfossi, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, refusing an
imprimatur to his work Elements d’Astronomie, and in 1822 when the same Pope approved a
decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition permitting books teaching that the earth
moves be published even at Rome itself. It is, of course, quite impossible that the Church
should authorise belief in an infallibly condemned heresy, awarding the Roman Imprimatur to
a book teaching it and authorising other such books to be published at Rome itself with
ecclesiastical approval.

Value of this argument. This consideration is unquestionably of great weight since
its conclusion can be evaded only by supposing that Popes Benedict XIV and Pius VII (not to
mention all subsequent popes, none of whom reversed the decisions of their predecessors on
this point) were either unaware of the facts concerning the seventeenth century condemnation
of heliocentrism or misevaluated them. There is surely an appearance of absurdity in
attributing such ignorance and theological ineptitude to Pope Benedict XIV, the celebrated
papal polymath whose name has become a byword for Catholic erudition, and in any event, if
learned popes have thought that the condemnation of heliocentrism was not irreversible,
Catholics who share their opinion can hardly be considered as having fallen into heresy until
the question shall have been cleared up by some future and more authoritative declaration of
the Holy See on this topic when a pope is again able to judge the matter. This is especially the
case in view of the principle to be enunciated in Argument number 6 which follows.
Even so, we think it only fair not to describe this point as completely decisive because
the relevant acts of Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Pius VII were deliberately low-profile, non-
infallible interventions and the authorisation to publish a book teaching heliocentrism was not
necessarily intended to be equivalent to a declaration that heliocentrism was now orthodox
doctrine. And in fact there does seem to be at least one historical example of a case in which
the infallible character of a papal decree was for a lengthy period overlooked by subsequent
popes, only being recognised anew after the passage of many centuries. We refer to the decree
of Pope St. Damasus I and the Synod of Rome (Denzinger 84) in 382 A.D. defining which
books comprised the canon of Sacred Scripture (being, of course, identical to the canon now
found in every Catholic Bible) which, however, did not suffice to prevent his successor St.
Gregory the Great from questioning the authenticity of the Book of Maccabees and numerous
Fathers of the Church and later theologians right into the Middle Ages from hesitating over
the canonicity over various books of Old or New Testament. The matter was eventually re-
defined by the Council of Trent on 8th April 1546 (Denzinger 783) which finally put an end
to all remaining controversy about the canon of the Bible.

6. “Nothing is understood to be dogmatically declared or defined unless this shall be
manifestly certain.” (Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, footnoted therein to the
constitution Inter Cunctas of Pope Martin V, 22 February 1418, volume 1, n.43 of Cardinal
Gasparri’s Fontes and volume 3, II, p.419-46 of the Bullarium Romanum.) This principle is
unanimously taught by all Catholic theologians: any reasonable doubt about whether
something has been infallibly declared or defined by the Church to be divinely revealed
suffices to make the question one of legitimate opinion. Hence even if we were to incline
strongly in favour of the conclusion that the condemnations of heliocentrism were infallible,
we could not impose this on others without maintaining the contrary view to be wholly and
manifestly unfounded. And in practice the five foregoing arguments against the infallibility of
these condemnations are abundantly sufficient to show that it is at least doubtful whether any
of them could be considered a dogmatic declaration or definition.

Value of this argument. Those who are determined to consider heliocentrism to be a
heresy in the strict sense of that term and all those who hold it after having the Church’s
decrees on this subject drawn to their attention to be heretics may be tempted to argue that this
argument is a two-edged sword: they could observe that by condemning Galileo as
vehemently suspect of heresy because of his apparent support for heliocentrism the Holy See
in 1633 must have regarded it as “manifestly certain” that the matter had been dogmatically
settled. But this serves only to divert attention from the crucial question of whether it is
possible today, in the light of the facts mentioned above, to claim that it is “manifestly
certain” that any of the relevant acts of the Church were in fact a dogmatic declaration or
definition. We cannot see how it is.
Extra SSPX Nulla Salus.
Dogmatic Sedeplenist.
 

Offline INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2733
  • Thanked: 436 times
  • >))))))º> † <º((((((<
  • Religion: (traditional) Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #157 on: October 07, 2015, 02:32:42 PM »
Fascinating! Good find.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<

 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 1767 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #158 on: October 07, 2015, 03:06:38 PM »
I realize that the thread has moved away from the OP considerably at this point, and do not particularly want to return it to the original topic of discussion (also, I don't have time this week to carry on a running argument with anyone).

No one could "carry on a running argument" about it with you anyway, since there's a three-month moratorium on the topic.  It should suffice as a response to Mr. Daly's citations that the first two are dated prior to Speculatores, in which Pope Alexander exercised his Apostolic Authority in affirming the condemnations.  That leaves the the other two citations to stand as little more than the opinions of two Jesuits.  Daly conveniently claims that "other examples could be added to this list."  Why weren't they, since the first two were irrelevant to begin with?  Why not stack your deck with four theologians who spoke after Speculatores?  "Harrumph.  I have a ton of experts to back me up, but I don't feel like telling you who they are."

Gabahag.  Just lock the thread and extend the moratorium indefinitely, as far as I'm concerned.  "I'd prefer a fair fight to all this sneaking around."

 :-X

« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 04:18:52 PM by Pon de Replay »
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1268 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #159 on: October 08, 2015, 01:22:53 AM »
Well, that’s an interesting point to bring up.  It’s clear that the Orthodox are far from perfect (although I, unlike you, have long since given up looking for absolute perfection).  But you have to be careful here.  I don’t think the divorce issue is any longer a bludgeon you can hit them with, now that swift & easy annulments are the order of the day in the Catholic Church.  Annulments have simply become divorce by another name...

This is merely a tu quoque argument.  (Even if the pot is calling the kettle black, the kettle is still black.)  It is certainly a bludgeon to hit them with, if you (or they) claim they have done "pretty okay".  That is, assuming that you can show that this is "against tradition".  They claim exactly the opposite.

Quote
But here’s a challenge for you, Quarem.  Do you think there exists a single prominent Russian Orthodox theologian who is on record as making a comment as blasphemous as Fr. Timothy Radcliffe’s when he said homosexuality can be “Eucharistic”

Probably not.  Then again, many Russian Orthodox clergy were KGB agents or otherwise supporters of Communism.

Quote
It’s not my demand that tradition affirm everything from grace on down to leeches.  On grace I follow St. Augustine: a suitably antiquated teaching based on a reading of St. Paul against Pelagius.  I acknowledge that this is a Latin theology; such is my patrimony.  Likewise the Byzantines have theirs.  In a fraternal spirit I’m okay with the differences; the common agreement is that Pelagius introduced novelty.  Tradition can’t buttress everything, but it can definitely tell you where innovation is.  That’s its function.

Is it?  The Easterns claim St. Augustine's teaching is an "innovation", and the true tradition lies in the semi-Pelagianism of the Eastern Fathers.  Likewise for the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
But maybe you need to consider whether every last piece of doctrinal minutiae was really supposed to be hashed out to precision by harsh logicians, or whether maybe theological speculation could withstand a healthy variety within the parameters of orthodoxy—that some aspects of the faith will remain a mystery to us during our earthly lives. 

Fine, but you have to use "harsh logic" even to make your own case.

Quote
I never said it decisively proved you wrong.  I only brought those quotes out to counter your claim that making tradition the standard is “simply absurd.”  You are certainly welcome to your opinion.  All I was saying is that your “growth in understanding” hermeneutic seems perversely Hegelian to me, especially when compared with those more conservative ideas of St. Leo and St. Vincent.  It wasn’t intended as a “you must be wrong!!!” bellow, but rather a small sampling offered for your consideration.  I just don’t think they believed, in the Early Church, in a progressive “development of doctrine” scheme as bold as the one you argue for.  I could be wrong. 

Which is only relevant if you have already chosen to make tradition the standard.  I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.


 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20512
  • Thanked: 6158 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Robert Sungenis is a fraud
« Reply #160 on: October 08, 2015, 01:48:52 PM »
Gonna go ahead and close this. 

Aquila, do note your post violated my greentext.  See your PM.
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay