Palm has said something about Geocentrics misconstruing what a Bull of Pope Alexander VII was really about ...
But the most egregious abuse of this papal document is when the geocentrists misrepresent it as if its main topic was Copernicanism. For example, Mark Wyatt stated in his edit of the Wikipedia article on Modern Geocentrism: “Alexander VII, in a Papal Bull declared that ‘the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture’ and the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation” (Wikipedia, “Modern Geocentrism”, 25 Oct 2005.) This gives the impression that the central topic of the bull was the condemnation of Copernicanism. But this is simply false. The subject of the bull was the republication of the Index of Forbidden Books. Many decrees, not just those dealing with Copernicanism, were attached to this publication in order that a complete history may be established. And—this is important—in no case was the text of any of them cited in the bull. It is highly misleading to state, as Wyatt did, that Alexander VII’s bull “declared” anything with respect to Copernicanism. It is false to present Speculatores Domus Israel as if its subject was Copernicanism.
Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org : Geocentric Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentric-double-standards-and-exaggerations-on-magisterial-documents/
First off, the documents attached to the Bull do belong to what the Pope intended to forbid reading. Like the Syllabus Errorum by Pope Pius IX and the Second Syllabus by Pope Saint Pius X. The list of errors is given a prominence by the fact of being attched to a Bull or whether by fact of being attached to an Encyclical. Of course a thesis previously only condemned as "male sonans" does not become full fledged heresy just because it is attached in a Syllabus Errorum to an Encyclical which specifically tells that the theses retain the solemnity of censures as previously given. But supposing any thesis that was only male sonans had been in the Syllabus by Pope Pius IX - I do not think it was the case, but I could be wrong - his attaching it to the syllabus would certainly have meant that considering it "male sonans" has from then on his Papal authority behind it.
Second, this:
It is false to present Speculatores Domus Israel as if its subject was Copernicanism.
And Heliocentrics have never done anything like the same ever?
Have a look at Dimond brothers defending Heliocentrism as perfectly orthodox and defined as such by Pope Benedict XV, because he very indirectly kind of admitted a possibility of Dante having been wrong on cosmology (like he was less sure he was that than on his being wrong on circulation of the blood and a few more things), as they do so in a debate with me which I put on my correspondence blog, I will give you the debate here on my blog post:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html
Pope Benedict XV explicitly taught that the earth may not be the centre of the universe,
Pope Benedict XV's subject matter was Dante and one problem was that modern astronomy had come to consider the Geocentric position of the latter as inaccurate, and he basically said "if so, it doesn't matter, Dante's work is theologically fine fiction anyway".
Sounds more like he is allowing the inaccurate cosmology of "several universes" in the Narnia books than that he is seriously on his own account actually explicitly allowing Heliocentric or Modern Cosmology to be believed.
But Palm has his own axe to grind. Speaking to those accepting post-Vatican II heretical or heterodox schismatic Antipopes as Popes, he gives high credence to whatever endorsement they have given Galileo posthumously.
Even if their format was "as little binding" (at least, even if accepting them as Popes) as the format of Alexander VII (i e attaching Heliocentrism to a list of errors on which books written to promote them may not be read to a bull saying one should not read them) in the possibly wrongful analysis of Palm.
Saying that Alexander VII did not intend to re-condemn (to condemn once again) books promoting Heliocentrism is like saying Bishop Tempier did not intend to condemn (for the first time) in his diocese the errors of astrology. Saying "all things that happen down here only happen because of the stars and planets" is very much an error and it is very much only one error of the 219 ones that he condemned. Shall we conclude he did not intend to condemn it?*
In Praeclara Summorum has no list of condemnations, no list of canons attached to it. The then Pope answered a point raised about Dante.
The latter had in certain works endorsed the false political theory which Popes had been condemning - of subordinating Church to State. Would Benedict XV condemn Dante and make himself immensely impopular among Italians? This was between the 1870 forceful elimination of the Papal States and invasion of Rome and the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The Popes felt more or less like Russian Orthodox bishops residing in Moscow - under Communism. Or would the Pope perhaps avoid the issue by endorsing Divina Commedia and make himself ridiculous by directly endorsing Geocentrism? He did none of these things. He said Divina Commedia was a fine novel with a fine theology whatever the possible faults - note he avoided saying definitely Geocentrism was a fault too! - of Dante's science.
Avoiding to stick one's head into a hornets' nest (as the Geocentric controversy of past history had become, socially speaking) does not amount to using one's personal authority to endorse what was previously condemned.
I have had Sungenis construe licet with subjunctive as meaning St Thomas did NOT think angels were moving the planets and stars (a passage in De Potestate Dei, when in other places including such in the same work St Thomas does think that they do. Now the Dimond brothers have taken a licet with subjunctive as meaning the Popes DOES think the content of the clause. But a licet with subjunctive clause does not inform us whether the one saying it believes it or not, not one way or the other.
I do not think the Dimond brothers made up their In praeclara reference for Heliocentrism being licit simply themselves either, I rather believe that pre-Vatican II some priests with a heavy Galileo complex and as heavy a feeling Popes just have to be obeyed in everything or even "we cannot say it definitely without a Pope" had misconstrued Benedict XV before them.
So, Palm cannot even claim that bad canonic analysis of the case is the privilege of one side, the one he is attacking. Unfortunately he made this bad claim.
John Paul II considered the 1820 decree regarding Canon Settele’s book (more than just an imprimatur, though that would have been enough, given that it came from Pius VII himself — and yes, a decree from the pope to allow publication can overcome a prior decree that something is on the Index) to have “closed the debate” in favor of heliocentrism.
Sweethearts Seeking Sanctity : Geocentrism: A Dangerous Pseudoscience
(comment section)
http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html
If he meant that historically for the moment, he might have been right.
But if he meant it in a Roma locuta est sense, no way (besides, John Paul II/Wojtyla, the man who called the Assisi meeting of 86, may be considered as debunked as to credentials of good theology).
It settled perhaps that Heliocentrism could licitly be defended, but did not directly adress whether it could be believed. And Pius VII like Benedict XV after him may well have avoided the most direct issue, since they may have felt it was ultra vires. Because of the same canon of Trent which was invoked by St Robert Bellarmine in "the first Galileo trial" (which was not a trial against Galileo, but against a book of his, he was present as attorney of his book, not as accused of heresy).
And very certainly it did NOT settle that Settele was right and Anfossi wrong on cosmology. Pius VII only settled that Settele could publish and Anfossi could not stop him. He never told Anfossi to change his mind on cosmology. He never made Anfossi retract for having felt Geocentrism was true and compulsory, just to step back from defending its obligatory force by denying an imprimi potest.
Here is my blogpost from when I studied the Settele affair:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html
It is very annoying that people keep popping up who seem to think Geocentrism somehow became forbidden when in fact at the most Heliocentrism was allowed. Anfossi was not to put Settele on index, but he was not asked to put books defending Geocentrism on it instead. Riccioli which defends Heliocentrism (and yes, Heliocentrism with angelic movers) was never put on the index. St Thomas Aquinas who made his Prima Via based on Geocentrism was not put on the Index. St Robert Bellarmine's defense of truth in the 1616 process was not put on the Index. And I could presumably go on.
Since I just made some claims about Riccioli and St Thomas Aquinas which might somewhat surprise Catholics who are Heliocentrics, I will back them up:
New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html
Where I link to Father Riccioli. On angelic movers. Sorry I cannot link right now to when he uses them against Heliocentrism, but I haven't looked that up in the pages, only on a separate document or in a separate book (it could be Chaberlo's book on Science). But that he was Geocentric can be seen from the fact that he was writing as an obedient Catholic and specifically on subject of astronomy.
Now, what about St Thomas' Prima Via? In I Q2 A3 he does not specifically mention Sun being moved daily around the Earth. He does however say it is manifest to the senses that certain things are in movement, "as for instance the Sun." He is not talking about its supposed movement around the galaxy, since it is not apparent to the senses. The one movement of the Sun which is apparent to the senses is the daily one in certain moments (like when crossing horizons up, or down, or when appearing or disappearing around a tall object), i e its movement westward with the universe around Earth. Furthermore, he is specifically using the oneness of that daily turn (in Geocentrism Earth is not just one in many planets each spinning around axis, each giving any observer stationed on it impression of universe moving around it, falsely, but the impression is true of Earth) as proof its mover is also one.
Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
Summa Theologiae : Prima Pars : Q 11 : A 3
http://newadvent.com/summa/1011.htm#article3
Nothing about stars being billions of lightyears away and having nothing to do with our days and seasons ... in Geocentrism (any version) they are the fastest spinning objects of the westward movement the universe dailily makes around Earth. And presumably (St Thomas' version and mine, if not Sungenis') thus not billions of light years away either.
In the Summa contra gentes the proof for God is even more specifically tied to His causing the movement of the Universe around Earth (I am working on a translation from the Latin, a Thomistic site left out parts in the English translation).
So, Riccioli is not on the index. St Thomas is not on the index. Neither of them was put on the index in the Anfossi affair. So why are people agreeing with them treated as if their writings were or should be on the index?
Anthony at Sweethearts, in comment section goes on with his motivation:
I have no patience for this nonsense. I’ve already seen it lead one person away from tradition, and prevent another from coming into the Church at all. Of all the issues out there, all the problems in our poor world and our poor Church, you’re planting your flag on whether the earth or the sun moves through space? I guess every group has its lunatic fringe.
Lunatic fringe is specifically not a Catholic category of sociology.
If the Church really sees a thing as a madness, it usually condemns it as a heresy. If she doesn't, she doesn't call it lunatic fringe either.
This condemning as heresy has not been done with Geocentrism and still some are taking a stand as if it were a lunacy. A polite (and astrological) word for madness, or for on-and-off-madness.
One man refrained from becoming a Trad. Another man refrained from becoming a Catholic at all. Was the problem that there was a Geocentric or that they knew of a Geocentric? Or was their problem that they were Heliocentric/into Modern Cosmology to the point of making that part of their religion? And if so, is not perhaps Heliocentrism and Modern Cosmology more of a problem than Pope Pius VII may have thought?
For some it is not enough to see the faithful are allowed to be Heliocentrics, they want to see faithful forbidden to be Geocentrics - and keep out of a Church that doesn't provide that.
As I suggested about the attitudes of Pius VII and Benedict XV having something to do with Trent, the Church cannot provide that.
And should not provide that.
And people who want it to and despise it if it doesn't have, as far as I am concerned, not the best disposition for saving their souls even inside the Church. Assuming they could have some excuse for considering Heliocentrism right, they have no excuse for considering it revealed before the final Apostle finished his life and part of Deposit of Faith and therefore they have no excuse for not seeing it is not important to impose it. I am not into flat earth, but the position has as far as I know not been forbidden by the Church. I argue against it, but not as if arguing against a heresy.
Oh, yes, David Palm in an earlier post actually gave one exception ... except that he cited a fragmentarily preserved work where "Aristarchus discovered Heliocentrism" (basically!) came ... in a list of Pagan mathematical and philosophical discoveries. According to David Palm's own reasoning, about Alexander VII, this should then not be considered the formal teaching of that Church Father. We do not have all of the work, and if we had it, the next phrase after the list might have been something like "but mathematicians were not infallibly right on everything, sometimes they taught things only probably and not even true".
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day of St Gregory Thaumaturgus
of Neocaesarea
17-XI-2014
* Or close to it : "Quod omnium formarum causa effectiua inmediata est orbis." Error number 106 of original list and 5 on errors about stars on the systematic reedition of the condemnations.
Capitulum XII Errores de celo et stellis
subdivision of the Tempier condemnations on the En lengua romance blog
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html
"Quod sanitatem, infirmitatem, uitam et mortem attribuit positioni siderum et aspectui fortune, dicens quod si eum aspexerit fortuna uiuet; si non aspexerit, morietur." Error 206 of original list. And 6 on errors about necessity.
Capitulum XIV Errores de necessitate euentus rerum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xiv.html
** I presume so at least. If "Vedic astronomy" for instance states that Sun is lower than Moon (Pole Star being very highest) but has at same time a greater horizontal distance:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-not-believing-vedic-astronomy-apart.html
*** I was very tired this morning when I said both questions were licit to have either opinion, when that is only true for flat or round earth question. Geocentric question may be canonically licit insofar as the Church is concerned to have either opinion, insofar as the Church does not actively excommunicate anyone for being Heliocentric, but when it comes to Church Fathers and Holy Writ the question is otherwise, as I have already stated elsewhere. So, I had to strike through "both questions were/are" and replace with "one question was/is"./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment