Infallible, you say?

[dairygirl4u2c]

The key word is suspected, not "heresy."


I'm not sure where you're going with that. He was suspected of heresy. That means he was suspected of breaking a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Was the suspicion only because they weren't sure if it was a dogma of the Catholic Church, or because they were suspicious he was breaking defined RC dogma? It'd seem like a cop out if you said the former, but if you have evidence that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[thessalonian]

I love these protestant "experts" in Catholic theology. It's like a 4th grader telling a college professor his calculus is wrong. A guy I know was recently over in France. There was alot of anti-American sentiment over there. No matter what he would say he was of course wrong. You can't however understand what America is and love it until you've lived here. You can't love Catholicism and understand it until you've lived it. It's just not possible. So you will continue to grope around blindly in the darkness, while on the other hand being blown about by every wind of Protestant doctrine. Today it's the trinity, tommorrow it might be modalism or Arianism. Or maybe it's as suttle as switching from a OSAS church to one that teaches Eternal Security. Either way it is individual men ruling over the scriptures and subjecting them to their own external understandings that usually have very little knowledge and understanding (something to be given by shepherds, see Jer 3:15) of the context they were written in.

God bless though

Edited March 10, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

Hi Thessolonian,

It's only necessary that our conclusions be correct. It's not necessary that they be popular.

And

IN God we Trust. With everyone else we want to see the data.

LittleLes

PS

Hi Dairygirl4u2c,

Give me a chance and I'll find that Galileo statement by the Holy Office. I'll try to post the revelant part(s) and (yuk!) see if there's a website so you can read it in its entirety (if you want to).

[Winchester]

It's certainly odd that scholars don't consider the heretic burning to be a part of the Depositum Fidei. Thus the Church has never viewed this as a statement possessing the dignity of an Ex Cathedra statement. Many things similar to this in their outward appearance have not been regarded as having that special charism. I shall certainly reread the Bull.

I have a very good reason for not accepting links as arguments: It's laziness. One must reference and then provide a solid backup. A good reference is a sumation of the article.

[LittleLes]

Hi DairyGirl4u2c,

Although Catholic apologists try to argue that the Galileo matter was about astronomy, that was only a peripheral issue. The central issue can be found in the Holy Office's writing.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the universe: AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DEFENDED AS PROBABLE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE, and in consequence thou has incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canon."

Several Psalms claimed that the earth could not be moved. Galileo's hypothesis contradicted these. The Church "declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture" such views.

Ergo, the Church does not always interpret scripture correctly. That's what some apologists just can't admit.

se: [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html[/url]

Or if you (like myself) are not comfortable with URL's, "search" under Modern History Sourcebook: The Crime and Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633.

Littleles

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 10 2005, 12:36 PM'] Hi Thessolonian,

It's only necessary that our conclusions be correct. It's not necessary that they be popular.

And

IN God we Trust. With everyone else we want to see the data.

LittleLes

PS

Hi Dairygirl4u2c,

Give me a chance and I'll find that Galileo statement by the Holy Office. I'll try to post the revelant part(s) and (yuk!) see if there's a website so you can read it in its entirety (if you want to). [/quote]
The point that you missed is your conclusions will always be correct in your own mind because you have subjected everything to your own understandings. The very scriptures that you hold dear say "trust not in your own understanding". I applaud your questions and don't care if they are popular or not. In the long run your fruits will show what is behind your methods.

[LittleLes]

Hi Thessalonian,

Or I'll be proven correct. Scary, ain't it

LittleLes

[thessalonian]

Little Les,

First off the Holy Office is nowhere said to be infallible.
Secondly, nowhere does it say that every declaration (or any declaration) of the Holy Office or any other person or group other than a pope or council or the Ordinary Magesterium in certain circumstances is infallible.
Thirdly what you have to produce is a document by a pope, council, or the Ordinary Magesterium under the confines of infallibility as defined by the Church in accord with the Binding and loosing in Matt 16:18 and Matt 18 that says that the earth is the center of the universe and immovable in an infallible manner. I fully admit that the Holy Office was incorrect in its declaration against Galileo. But show the church declaration that proves you contention that THE CHURCH misinterpruted scripture because the Holy Office is not THE CHURCH. Sorry. I know of course that in your blindness you will continue to argue, "knowing" that you are wiser than Catholics and Catholic theologians about our dogmas and doctrines. It's called pride Les and its one of the seven Capital sins. I am sorry to call a spade a spade. God bless

[Jaime]

Tell me if I'm missing something here but...

Three pages of posts and not one dealing with the topic of papal infallibility?

Anybody else picking up on that?

Little Les, for goodness sakes, you are the one who started the discussion!! Are we ever going to get to it?

You have yet to bring up a dogmatic statement that was ex cathedra for discussion.

Could we get to it already?

[LittleLes]

Hi Thes,

(1) Have you read the declarations of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council on the Church's authority in the interpetation of scripture? But perhaps these teaching were themselves not infallible. You think???

(2) No, the definitions of the Holy Office were not per se infallible. But if the Church infallibly claims that the church always interprets scripture correctly, and it is proven wrong in that claim, that's the infallibility in question.

Hi Jamiee,

I'm afraid that CAM 42 's challenge about the infallibility of the Church's claim that it always interprets scripture correctly does include the concept of infallibility.

But I'd agree that my intent in subtitling this thread the infallibility of ex cathedra statements was to initially limit the discussion of infallibility to that area, to which I now (or at least by tomorrow) will return.

Except for CAM's claim that Exsurge domine was a Bull and somehow that makes it a non ex cathedra statement, I don't see any real objection to the basic assertion that:

Catholics may not believe that it is not the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned.
And are automatically excommunicated if they do.

So I guess most accept that this is still a valid Church teaching. Do you think it is?

LittleLes

Maybe tomorrow I can introduce another papal letter which meets the criteria for infallibility, and we can see if we still agree with it.

Along the lines of what you say, there's an interesting conflict. If I do get involved in answering CAM's off topic questions, C-Mother and perhaps youself can than chide me for not sticking with my topic. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't, I guess.

Edited March 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

Regarding Galileo, see:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp[/url]

[quote]Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.[/quote]

Regarding Exsurge Domine, I don't know what the controversy is. Pope Leo X is simply condemning the idea that execution of heretics is intrinsically wrong (and thus against the will of the spirit). The proposition is not dealing with medieval methods of execution (ie, burning), but execution itself. Burning was the civil punishment for heretics (who threated the foundation of society), and so Leo X used the specific word "burning" to specify what he was talking about--the morally licit execution of those who threaten society; which liceity the Church still upholds today.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Eremite

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 10 2005, 02:11 PM'] Hi Thes,

(1) Have you read the declarations of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council on the Church's authority in the interpetation of scripture? But perhaps these teaching were themselves not infallible. You think???

(2) No, the definitions of the Holy Office were not per se infallible. But if the Church infallibly claims that the church always interprets scripture correctly, and it is proven wrong in that claim, that's the infallibility in question.

Hi Jamiee,

I'm afraid that CAM 42 's challenge about the infallibility of the Church's claim that it always interprets scripture correctly does include the concept of infallibility.

But I'd agree that my intent in subtitling this thread the infallibility of ex cathedra statements was to initially limit the discussion of infallibility to that area, to which I now (or at least by tomorrow) will return.

Except for CAM's claim that Exsurge domine was a Bull and somehow that makes it a non ex cathedra statement, I don't see any real objection to the basic assertion that:

Catholics may not believe that it is not the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned.
And are automatically excommunicated if they do.

So I guess most accept that this is still a valid Church teaching. Do you think it is?

LittleLes

Maybe tomorrow I can introduce another papal letter which meets the criteria for infallibility, and we can see if we still agree with it.

Along the lines of what you say, there's an interesting conflict. If I do get involved in answering CAM's off topic questions, C-Mother and perhaps youself can than chide me for not sticking with my topic. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't, I guess. [/quote]
Yes, their decrees that bind (i.e. carry an anathema) are binding. I've read much of trent and vatican one and cannot recall any declarations of Helicentricty or geocentrism. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.


[quote]. But if the Church infallibly claims that the church always interprets scripture correctly, and it is proven wrong in that claim, that's the infallibility in question.[/quote]

No, I am afraid it does not say that every bishop or priest or Holy Office interpruts scripture correctly. The Church is not a priest or a bishop or a Holy Office. Of coruse you define Church as used in the documents the way it suits you so of course you will continue to kick against the goads. There is no infallibility issue in the Holy Office decree against Galileo unless you can come up with a statement on his findings that is declared to be believed by all the faithful under the authority of the Pope, Bishops in Council, or Ordinary Magesterium. If anyone of these in the confines of infallibility made such a declartion on these matters I will accept that as evidence. I'll be waiting patiently as you seem to have found something in trent or Vatican 1 about heliocentrism.

Blessings



Blessings

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Or I'll be proven correct. Scary, ain't it [/quote]

No, it's not scary, anymore than atheists who quote thousands of scriptural verses that "contradict" one another, and thus disprove the divine inspiration of Scripture, or pagans who claim Christianity simply copied ancient myths and beliefs.

Sure, their arguments, like yours, may serve to confound on a superficial level. And, even more sure, we may not have all the answers to them. But our lack of knowledge proves nothing, either the atheist's rants against Scripture, or the Protestant's rants against the Church.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Eremite

[Cam42]

[quote]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.[/quote]

If that is what you think, then you must really brush up on your understanding of papal infalliblity, becuase you are incorrect.

[quote]It's only necessary that our conclusions be correct. It's not necessary that they be popular.[/quote]

When it is correct, those of us who are degreed in Theology will let you know.

[quote]Or I'll be proven correct. Scary, ain't it[/quote]

Hardly....I am still waiting for you to start your discussion of infallibilty with me.

[quote]If I do get involved in answering CAM's off topic questions...[/quote]

First, I have not asked any questions. Second, I have been talking about infallibility. I did make a side note to dairy about Galileo, however, I am still waiting for you to engage me on the infallibility issue. You still have not done that. Do you really like playing cat and mouse?

[quote]Regarding Exsurge Domine, I don't know what the controversy is. Pope Leo X is simply condemning the idea that execution of heretics is intrinsically wrong (and thus against the will of the spirit).[/quote]

Eremite, thanks for confirming what I have already said. Perhaps now he will get it? Who am I kidding!!!

Hey Les, I am still waiting.....you still have not addressed me directly....you need to do this, I am getting tired of holding this big stick with your proverbial brains on it.

Cam

[Jaime]

Ok Little Less

Let's see if we can inform as well as entertain.

You make the assertion that because a pope said something about heretics, stakes and burning, and it fits the criteria for ex cathedra statements, it must be dogma.

It doesn't work that way.

For the same reason that if I have flour,butter, eggs, baking soda and chocolate chips, I can't automatically say I have a chocolate chip cookie.

I have to[i] choose[/i] to make it a chocolate chip cookie.

Let's give another example shall we? Something a bit more current that follows the criteria for Ex Cathedra (almost). Here we have

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html"]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/url], a document written by the Holy Father. This letter talks about the issue of ordaining women and states

[quote]Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/quote]

Pretty strong language? Yup. Dogma?

Nope.

The Holy Father doesn't just do Ex Cathedra willy nilly. Not every statement that meets the criteria is an Ex Cathedra statement.

This is why I've been asking for [b] something[/b] that fits the criteria of your discussion thread.