Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX | Catholicism and Geocentrism
Catholic Family News | 22 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4p9rRzDrKc
- katie
- @BronxCat
- Fr. Robinson and Dr. Sungenis need to talk.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- I don't think it's Dr. Sungenis who's balking out of the debate.
Own comments:
I think Fr. Robinson is a shifty person, who is bent on making his side of the argument seem good to as many as listen to him, and he is aware, bringing on a debater won't serve that purpose.
5:37 Consistency ...
For Heliocentrism ... because Geocentrism was just against one person (even if the verdict got sent out to the Catholic world)
For BoD and BoB ... because Fr. Feeney was just one person?
Pope Michael I and the Dimond Brothers are both more consistent than you are, even if they land on opposite sides of both issues to each other ....
that Galileo 5:35 was told you know you can't you can't teach um that scripture teaches 5:41 heliocentrism and he was he was forbidden to to say that that uh scripture does not teach 5:47 geocentrism
Er, no.
The question was not a disciplinary question about what Galileo had the right to say the Scriptures taught or didn't teach.
The question was a doctrinal one about what Galileo believed was true. Here is the beginning of the* sentence:
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:
This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
So, in fact, the proposition by Fr. Robinson does not correctly relate the facts of the trial.
6:16 Oh, you were talking of the 1616 process ...
St Robert Bellarmine one of the things he said is that well basically 6:01 Galileo if you provide scientific evidence of that's compelling that that 6:06 the the earth goes around the Sun then we we would be willing for um to change 6:11 our interpretation of scripture or to to move to a more neutral interpretation
Here** is from a page of 1616:
Having reached a decision, the Sacred Congregation of the Index published a decree condemning the ``... doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless.'' Foscarini's book was prohibited, and Copernicus' book was suspended pending correction. Galileo and his books were not explicitly mentioned. However, Galileo was called to a personal interview with Cardinal Bellarmine at which he was informed of the content of the decree and told to obey, and he submitted.
So, Foscarini was a priest. Copernicus was a priest. And Galileo was not personally condemned and also not personally even a suspect.
The sentence was not purely disciplinary, "you Foscarini, being a layman, have no business to interpret Scripture" (Foscarini was, as said, a priest) but it was doctrinal "Heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture" ...
6:29 200 years later, that would be parallax, and no, that observation, mislabelled after the parallactic optic illusion, is not conclusive.
7:10 Well, yes, it was OK to propose Heliocentrism by argument.
The decree actually leaves out whether it is OK to believe Heliocentrism true.
What Pius VII did not say, however, was that it was not still OK to propose Geocentrism by argument. Including argument for Heliocentrism being illicit.
Let's be clear, Father Anfossi had no right as an Inquisitor to ban the book by Settele, which taught Heliocentrism as true. But he was not forbidden, and neither has anyone since been forbidden, except perhaps in 1992 by someone you believe to have been a bad pope and I to have been a non-Pope, to argue Geocentrism is true, or even that Heliocentrism on some level entails heresy. That is, that those who believe Heliocentrism have a damaged faith, and the Church cannot consist entirely of such people.
I note that while Leo XIII and Benedict XV were not rescinding the judgement of Pius VII they were also avoiding to directly express belief in Heliocentrism.
8:12 Prior to the judgement, the one example that categorically taught Heliocentrism to be factually true and expressed this as to exposition of astronomy was Settele.
Confer the fact that Father Haydock, the famous commentator on the Bible, on Joshua 10 inserts into the comment of Calmet, so the passage*** reads like this:
The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet)
--- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock)
--- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.
Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longæ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)
See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.
This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet)
Apparently Calmet was not explicitly saying the miracle could have happened in a Heliocentric world, and Haydock made sure to to include that, but just as one possibility, without excluding the other. Indeed "the machinery of the world" seems to imply sth turning around earth up to the fix stars. If it had been the earth itself turning, there would have been no point in adding "without causing any derangement in the different parts." ...
8:20 "it was pretty commonplace"
Does not follow from the wording "even by Catholic authors" ....
If Fr. Robinson has any exact info on how commonplace or not it was, that's interesting, but if he concludes it from "even by Catholic authors" that's over-reading.
9:02 Note very well, arguing against Heliocentrism is sth very different from censoring works that are Heliocentric.
Or treat of Heliocentrism.
Those threatened with punishment are not Geocentrics arguing, but anyone censoring.
[I tried to add:]
"basically punishes those um who are are trying to stop people from from 9:13 writing about Heliocentrism"
Indeed. So, what does that make of you, when you are trying to stop a layman from writing about the weakness of Heliocentrism?
"kind of ironic I mean with 9:18 people who who would claim that you have to believe geocentrism"
Not all that much, given that we are not pretending one cannot write on Heliocentrism, we are in fact ourselves writing on Heliocentrism to debunk it.
Father Robinson misrepresents the scope of the 1822 verdict.
10:13 "does that mean it is irreformable"
The 1616 and 1633 decrees were in fact NOT overturned in 1820 or 1822, except as to licitness of writing.°
* Cited from:
Famous Trials Trial of Galileo Galilei 1633
Papal Condemnation
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
** Cited from:
The Decree of 1616
Robert Moniot 2004-03-28
https://www.dsm.fordham.edu/~moniot/galileo_from_a_different_angle/node5.html
*** Cited from:
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
JOSUE - Chapter 10
https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id545.html
° And illicitness of censoring. Whoever made my comments under the video invisible, would be condemnable under that 1822 decree.
No comments:
Post a Comment