God Conquers Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Yes... because by claiming such that person is not in accord with the teachings of the CHurch, which decides what is and is not the will of the Spirit. It may be that the will of the Spirit is not to burn heretics at the stake, but it is the CHurch's place to define that, and not the individual's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 ADD: Not because it is good to burn people. But because it is definitively not good for anyone but the Church to interpret the Christian religion infallibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 (edited) [quote]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?[/quote] What in the heck does this have to do with infalliblity? It doesn't....hi-jack thwarted!!!! Stay on topic. Cam Edited March 9, 2005 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Hi Peach Cube, Perhaps you should reread the Condemnation and Abrogation of Galileo on the Fordham University history department website. While some try to make this a more complex issue than it was, the really central issue is as to whether the Church interpreted scripture correctly, ie. is it certain that (1) the earth cannot be moved, and (2) The sun moves around the earth? Whether Galileo had sufficient proof isn't the issue. He was "vehemently suspected of heresy" for holding as probable an opinion contrary to that of the Church. Read the basic document on the web or in you favority history book. But someone posting says we now can question these church teachings. Oh Goody! LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 08:00 PM'] 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? [/quote] Restate (and simplify) if you must, but don't reform the irreformible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote]In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith." (CCC 889)[/quote] [quote]The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: (CCC 890)[/quote] [quote]"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (CCC 891)[/quote] [quote]Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (CCC 892)[/quote] [i]Lumen Gentium 12; cf. Dei Verbum 10 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I:DS 3074 DV 10 § 2 LG 25 § 2 Cf. LG 25 LG 25[/i] [quote]The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. (CCC 2035)[/quote] [i]Cf. LG 25; CDF, declaration, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3[/i] [quote]The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed. (CCC 2051)[/quote] [quote]The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for. (CCC 2035)[/quote] [i]LG 25[/i] [quote]"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (CCC 77)[/quote] [i]DV 7 § 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,1:PG 7/1,848; Harvey,2,9 DV 8 § 1[/i] [quote]The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)[/quote] I don't really need to say anything....I think that the teaching of the Church does that for itself. Good Luck on the rebuttal....the italics are citations....Now we are on 17 that you have to respond to Les. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 08:09 PM'] Hi Peach Cube, Perhaps you should reread the Condemnation and Abrogation of Galileo on the Fordham University history department website. While some try to make this a more complex issue than it was, the really central issue is as to whether the Church interpreted scripture correctly, ie. is it certain that (1) the earth cannot be moved, and (2) The sun moves around the earth? Whether Galileo had sufficient proof isn't the issue. He was "vehemently suspected of heresy" for holding as probable an opinion contrary to that of the Church. Read the basic document on the web or in you favority history book. But someone posting says we now can question these church teachings. Oh Goody! LittleLes [/quote] The point is it doesn't matter, all of Astronomy will note that he didn't have the quantitative data, therefore he had no proof. It's not about his condemnation. He thought it to be true but couldn't support it. If you do this in any science you deserve to meet skepticism and not meet approval of your ideas. You want the Church to just say, "Hmm you have no support, We accept it anyway!!" You were using Galileo to make a point, my point is that it isn't a very good point. Why is it so hard for you to accept that anyone is making a decent point? Mainstream Secular Astronomy and Cosmology can see that Galielo had NO QUANTITATIVE DATA. Galileo then taught this as if he had this data, he taught it is truth when it should have been taught as hypothesis. That is going to raise eyebrows. For someone who is always insisting on proof you sure are quick to judge the Church when Galileo had no proof. Forham doesn't even have Undergrad Astronomy so they definitely shouldn't be the gauge for what secular Astromers think of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE WHOLE GALILEO THING IS A HI-JACK...DON'T FUEL HIS FIRE.....KEEP HIM ON TOPIC......INFALLIBILITY!!!!!!! Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 It is completely irrelevant whether or not Galileo was correct. The issue was whether or not the Church always interpetes scripture correctly. But it was wrong in this case. Apparently, Vatican I's teaching in this regard was also in error. I'm trying to stay on topic. Would anyone care to answer my question as to whether a Catholic who does not believe it is God's will that heretics be burned at the stake is automatically excommunicated via the infallible papal decree Exsuge domine? Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) [quote]I'm trying to stay on topic.[/quote] No you are not. However, the matter of Galileo is not an infallible one, because [i]de facto[/i] the matter of Galileo was not a matter of faith and morals, but rather science. The Church cannot, by definiton, make an infallible statement on anything other than faith and morals. To assume anything else is incorrect. [quote]Would anyone care to answer my question as to whether a Catholic who does not believe it is God's will that heretics be burned at the stake is automatically excommunicated via the infallible papal decree Exsuge domine?[/quote] First off, you need to get the name right. It is Exsurge Domine. Secondly, #33 states: [quote]That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (ED 33)[/quote] Finally, you need to really start studying. Exsurge Domine is not infallible. It is a papal Bull. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM"]Exsurge Domine[/url] Would you care to show me where it states that it is an infallible document? It is not. It is a teaching of the Church...but it is not an infallible document. Sorry to burst your bubble. When are you going to start answering my posts? I am waiting. Cam Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) [quote]not a matter of faith and morals[/quote] So you say now. If it was still believed, I bet they'd say it was faith that you have to believe in the Catholic Church's interpretation of the solar system. [quote]"vehemently suspected of heresy"[/quote] Note the key word, "heresy". That means he was breaking the faith. I know a few ways you could rationalize that, but I think I better let you stumble around for that... Edited March 10, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) [quote]If it was still believed, I bet they'd say it was faith that you have to believe in the Catholic Church's interpretation of the solar system.[/quote] And you would lose your shirt. I would love to play Texas hold 'em with you sometime.....well, if I gambled, I would. [quote]Note the key word, "heresy".[/quote] Psst.....wrong key word. The key word is [i]suspected,[/i] not "heresy." Did it hurt when you stumbled and stubbed your toe? Cam Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Cam, (1) Exsurge Domine was indeed issued as a Papal Bull (a letter with a leaden seal). It clearly meets the three criteria established by Vatican I for an ex cathedra statement. That's all that is necessary for papal infallibility. The type of writing is not limited. Vatican's teaching cannot be reformed. (2) And the problem with the Galileo statement is not it's per se infallibility. The infallibility shown to be in error is the Church's claim that it always interprets scripture correctly. In the Galileo matter, that was shown to be untrue. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) [quote]Exsurge Domine was indeed issued as a Papal Bull (a letter with a leaden seal). It clearly meets the three criteria established by Vatican I for an ex cathedra statement. That's all that is necessary for papal infallibility. The type of writing is not limited. Vatican's teaching cannot be reformed.[/quote] I know that it was a Papal Bull. I told you that it was. Because something meets the criteria of being infallible doesn't mean that it is so, UNLESS the Holy Father or the Magisterium deem it to be so. They did not with Exsurge Domine. It was simply a Bull to make clarification. There was no intent of infalliblity. The type of writing, infallibility, is most certainly limited to that of faith an morals. It cannot reach beyond that scope, nor has it ever. And the Vatican reforms its teachings on doctrine all the time. As we come to a greater understanding of the Truth, the Church a dynamic and living entity grows and comes to a greater understanding of God's creation. It is only in the matter of faith and morals that she can and does speak infallibily, when deemed necessary. BTW, there have only been two instances when the Holy Father has spoken EX CATHEDRA. I notice that you dropped the Inquisition. I can only assume that you are now convinced that the Church was clear on the issue of burning people. You really need to come to a greater understanding of Papal infallibility before you get on your high horse (or rather, scalded mule). You really need to study the whole Galileo thing more seriously. Your claim is patently false and ubsurd. You can provide no proof for your statement. If you can, I would like you to post it, so I can go look it up. A link would be fine. I actually like the internet. As I have shown, I do actually have a cursory knowledge of the Galileo issue. I suggest that you read the article I posted earlier, it is a critical look. I also suggest that you read Cardinal Newman on Galileo. He gave a critical look at this as well. BTW, I would like a rebuttal to my statement of Mar 9 2005, 06:25 PM. You have not addressed that post either. It speaks directly to infallibilty. Cam Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) Sorry again CAM2. There need be no format or declaration that a ex cathedra teaching is infallible. If it meets the three criteria, it is. If it doesn't meet the three criteria, it isn't. It's really that simple. You don't have to wait till Father tells you so. LittleLes And you can read the Holy Office's (aka Office of the Holy Inquisition, now Conferternity for the Doctrine of the Faith) condemnation of Galileo at a number of websites. Read what the Holy Office was declaring to be heretical (has to be a matter of faith, not astronomy). Little Les Edited March 10, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts