LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Really? Are you then claiming that the "ordinary magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff is infallible and that the CDF is part of it? That's really pushing it. But if true, I guess Catholics are required to believe that the earth doesn't move and the sun revolves around the earth, since that was the formal ruling of the Holy Office (yet another former name for the CDF) in the Galileo matter. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 09:31 AM'] But if true, I guess Catholics are required to believe that the earth doesn't move and the sun revolves around the earth, since that was the formal ruling of the Holy Office (yet another former name for the CDF) in the Galileo matter. [/quote] Just to chime in on the Galileo matter, this is a major misconception, as I learned in getting my Degree in Astronomy from a Secular University, the reason the Church did not accept Galileo's position was not because they held too closely to Ptolemaic system. Galelio presented only arguments from analogy, and was never able to show a quantitative defense of the Copernican cosmology. That was not accomplished until Issac Newton came along. Without quantitative data there would be no proof that one system was correct and the other was incorrect. If you don't believe me you can read the works of Timothy Ferris, whose book "The Whole Shebang" does a phenominal job of explain elementary cosmology. Edited March 9, 2005 by peach_cube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 If one would like to read up on the Galileo matter, here is an article. I will not post a link, for obvious reasons, but will allow for all of you to look this up and find a hard copy. [u]Galileo the Theologian[/u] by Peter E. Hodgson as recorded in LOGOS: A Journal of Catholic Thought (Winter 2005, Vol. 8:1) It is quite a scholarly and academic look at the issue. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 05:31 AM'] Really? Are you then claiming that the "ordinary magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff is infallible and that the CDF is part of it? That's really pushing it. [/quote] When the Pope teaches a particular moral or dogmatic proposition, and does so in such a way that he [i]intends[/i] to bind the Church irrevocably to a particular doctrinal proposition, he is infallible, and this is true whether he is using his Ordinary or his Extraordinary Magisterium. I suggest that you read Cardinal Archbishop Bertone's essay entitled [u]Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent[/u], because at present, your grasp of the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium is superficial at best. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 05:31 AM'] But if true, I guess Catholics are required to believe that the earth doesn't move and the sun revolves around the earth, since that was the formal ruling of the Holy Office (yet another former name for the CDF) in the Galileo matter. [/quote] In determining the nature of the authority behind any given doctrinal assertion of the Magisterium you must use your God given rational capacity to comprehend the reality of the thing being taught. This is determined by the nature of the document issued, that is, what the author of the document is actually intending to assert, and whether he is intending to bind the Church to that position in a way that is definitive. Thus, in the case you have presented, i.e., the Galileo affair, was the Magisterium at the time intending to assert that the sun orbits the earth, or was the Magisterium rebuking Galileo for asserting that scripture was in error simply because the scriptural authors spoke in a phenomenological manner? Clearly, the Church's Magisterium was defending the truth of holy scripture, which speaks in a phenomenological way, and so the Pope (through the Roman Curia) was not endorsing the idea of geocentricism. In other words, is it a lie to say that the sun rises in the morning? Clearly it is not; rather, it is simply to speak about the matter by way of appearances, and of course it should be noted that human beings continue to speak this way even to this day. Clearly you do not understand the nature of the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium. Now the Magisterium operates in three different modes, the first two modes, i.e., the solemn Extraordinary mode of operation and the Ordinary and Universal mode of operation, are infallible, while the third mode of operation, which is normally called "authentic" or "authoritative," requires the submission of intellect and will on the part of the faithful, but does not bind the Church irrevocably to a particular doctrinal proposition. Any document issued by the Magisterium must be read within its proper context in order to determine the extent to which the Magisterium's authority is engaged, and that is precisely what you are not doing. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 9 2005, 06:10 AM'] If one would like to read up on the Galileo matter, here is an article. I will not post a link, for obvious reasons, but will allow for all of you to look this up and find a hard copy. [u]Galileo the Theologian[/u] by Peter E. Hodgson as recorded in LOGOS: A Journal of Catholic Thought (Winter 2005, Vol. 8:1) It is quite a scholarly and academic look at the issue. Cam [/quote] I believe that the magazine "Catholic Dossier" also had an excellent article on the Galileo affair some years back. I recommend that those who are interested in the topic read that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Can you give some more examples LittleLes? I'd recommend reading into the whole "saved out the the Catholic Church" and "not saved outside the Catholic Church". Other than that, I have a whole lot more about the smoke and mirrors of the Catholic Church system, but I don't want to spend too much time right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 "In determining the nature of the authority behind any given assertion of the Magisterium , you must use you God given rational capacity to comprehend the reality of the thing being taught." Really? But I'm afraid that's not exactly a Catholic view. What if I decided that, despite its infallible pronouncement, the dogma of the Assumption, which has no basis in scripture and began as a legend in the 4th or 5th century, was not a factual event? Are you telling me that Catholics are allowed to judge the "reality of the thing being taught"? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Hi DairyGirl 4/2/C, What is it exactly that you want more examples of? Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Lets apply the three criteria "infallibly" established by Vatican I for ex caathedra infallible statements to a particular papal writing, in this case "Exsurge Domine" by Pope Leo X, dated 15 June, 1520. (Before anyone asks, yes, its on the web, but some Catholic sites might not carry it). 1. - in the exercise of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians, E.D. "We condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds and against Catholic truth. By listing them we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected...We restrain all in the virtue of haoly obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication." 2. - in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, E.D. "...by the authority of Almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority..." 3. - he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church. E.D. In this case the matter of faith is a teaching regarding "the will of the (Holy) Spirit." One of the theses condemned, reprobated, etc. is # 33. "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." Or stated positively, under the penalty of an "automatic major excommunication" Catholics must believe that it is the will of God that heretics (in this case principally Lutheran heretics) be burned at the stake. Curiously, this is still on the books, so it follows that Catholics who dodn't really think it is the will of God that nonCatholics be burned at the stake must themselves be excommunicated. LittleLes Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to get the exact quotations in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 uh... dude... The condemnation of a negative assumption does NOT automatically make it's positive true. Because the Church condemns the statement: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" Definately does NOT mean that the will of the Spirit or of the Chruch is that heretics be burned at the stake. It just means that the statement is false. Probably because the CHURCH, not some theologian or activist, decides what the will of the Spirit is... NOT because the will of the Spirit is to burn people. This is elementary logic man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Examples of infallible declarations which contradict each other. Just keep doing what you're doing. Except use logic... you're giving us prots a bad name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Viewing from the sidelines, I find it amusing how desperately some individuals are to prove the Catholic Church's teachings wrong. How many centuries must you dig back, in order to find an "alleged" fallible proclamation of the Church? Did your denomination even exist in the days of Galileo? Didn't think so. -_- But go ahead. Keep up this wonderful parody. I'm enjoying following the intellectual hiney whippin'. And when you're done being defeated on this topic, I hope you'll initiate several more. Where's the popcorn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote]Examples of infallible declarations which contradict each other.[/quote] There are none. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Hi God Conquers, I've heard the explanation that you've made before, and I'm afraid its a bit beside the point. Permit me to restate (and simplify) the issue. Is it infallibly held that a Catholic cannot belief that it is against the will of God for heretics to be burned at the stake? Is he automatically excommunicated for doing so? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts