The Interpretation of Scripture

[LittleLes]

This topic keeps coming up on other threads and I suppose it is inevitable that it do so. But since it is a question in its own right, lets give it its own thread.

Let me quote a document, and then first of all we can debate its legitimacy as a teaching, and then its accuracy.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2 #8: (1870)

a. In matters of faith and morals
b. belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine
c. that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one
d. which holy mother church held and holds since it is her right to judge the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.

Questions

1. Is it disputed that this is the text of the document and section cited?

2. Is this an infallible teaching?

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

Can you just get to your point without the grand buildup? I don't feel like chasing another rabbit hole.

[Brother Adam]

Chapter two of the Dogmatic Constitution starts with #9 and is on the People of God, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, however the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Has been since the Apostles and is now.

[Guest Eremite]

Brother,

Wrong Vatican Council.

You can find the text of the First Vatican Council here:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum20.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/...cils/Ecum20.htm[/url]

[Cam42]

[quote]1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. 

2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.

3. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.

4. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him.

5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us.

6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. (Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith 2:1-9)[/quote]

[i]Rm 1, 20
Heb 1, 1-2
1 Cor 2, 9
Council of Trent, session 4, first decree[/i]

There is the total of Chapter 2. Rather than have this "build up" we are just gonna "git ur dun."

The italics are citations. I would say that this answers question #1. However, to humor you:
[quote]Is it disputed that this is the text of the document and section cited?[/quote]

Yes. I just provided the documentation. Chapter 1 deals with God the creator of all things. Chapter 2 deals with Revelation. Chapter 3 with Faith, chapter 4 with Faith and reason.

The Canons surrounding chatper 2 are as follows:
[quote]1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema. (Vatican Council I, 1870)[/quote]

And to answer #2:
[quote]Is this an infallible teaching?[/quote]

Yes it is infallible. It is not EX Cathedra, but it is infallible by definition.

[quote]If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910)[/quote]

What is being said? Infallibilty is granted from Christ, due to two or three of his Apostles are gathered. The bishops are successors of the Apostles, therefore it is infallible. Being united to the Pope allows for the confirmation of this infallibilty, for it is said in Mt. 16:18:
[quote]et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam. (Vulgate)[/quote]

Luke 22:31-32:
[quote]31 ait autem Dominus Simon Simon ecce Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum

32 ego autem rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos (Vulgate)[/quote]

John 21:15-17:
[quote]15 cum ergo prandissent dicit Simoni Petro Iesus Simon Iohannis diligis me plus his dicit ei etiam Domine tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce agnos meos

16 dicit ei iterum Simon Iohannis diligis me ait illi etiam Domine tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce agnos meos

17 dicit ei tertio Simon Iohannis amas me contristatus est Petrus quia dixit ei tertio amas me et dicit ei Domine tu omnia scis tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce oves meas (Vulgate)[/quote]

I think that speaks to the infalliblity issue quite nicely.....It comes directly from scripture. We can take up the idea of infalliblity from Tradition on a later post. That would answer #2.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite,

In law its called laying the foundation for a question.

It is suppose to limit rambling and off topic responses.

I wonder if it works with apologists too?

Lets see.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Hi Brother Adam,

This would be the First (not Second) Vatican Council. And this is not the Council of Trent's decree either, but its similar.

Type into your seach engine: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

Then look under Session 3, chapter 2 On revelation, Item #8 and "voila."

I think it at the geocities site.

You are welcome,

Little Les

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

The Vatican I document I quoted in post #1 actually involves two types of infallibility.

First of all, it is an example of an infallible teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium, ie., an ecumenical council's writings approved by the Pontiff, and the phrase "which holy mother church held and holds " speaks to the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, ie., teaching that have been held at all times and in all places.

The Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J., describes
the Ordinary Magisterium thus:

"The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible."

Any challenge to Hardon's statement above?

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]Any challenge to Hardon's statement above?[/quote]

No. Fr. Hardon, happens to cover this issue quite well. He is correct in his understanding of Magisterium. Perhaps you could learn from it.

There are three major aspects of infalliblity. They are mutual to one another, in other words, there is no disharmony within them toward another.

They are:

1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See
2. ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope
3. the pope himself separately

Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium or the common; everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority.

Vatican Council I invokes and confirms all three. Insofar through the first and second, it confirms and formalizes the third. Only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions. However, this does not invalidate the authenticity of the ordinarium magisterium.

Only those bishops who are in complete union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and center of Christ's mystical body, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises. In other words, the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope.

Only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts connected with faith and morals, as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts do not necessarily need to be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is may be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and can be construed (incorrectly) as practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequate organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

This is all promoted by the teaching of Vatican Council I. The basis can be gleaned and logically proven through Vatican Council I, as well as subsequent and previous councils.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Lets then review some scriptures the interpretation of which "holy mother church held and holds." Well, at least she did up until she recognized that she had been in error.

1 Chron 16:30 "...he has made the world firm never to be moved."

Ps 93.1 "...The world will surely stand in one place never to be moved."

Ps 104:5 "You fixed the earth on its foundation never to be moved."

Consequently:

"You include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures: therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquistion, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

And

"(You are) vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, contrary to Holy Scriptures...that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture."

Question: Was the Church correct in its interpretation of scripture in this case?

Again, sorry for the long post.

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

Historical perspective in necessary in addressing the aforementioned decrees. Historian Warren H. Carroll explains:

"In February 1616 Pope Paul V decided that a 'formal decision on the Copernican system' should be made by the Inquisition, though he was persuaded at the last moment by Cardinal Bellarmine not to make a statement himself on the issue. Cardinal Bellarmine had said it might eventually be proved true; probably the greatest Catholic apologist who ever lived, he surely had some understanding of how disastrous it would be for the Church to have the Pope condemn a scientific theory that later turned out to be true." (The Cleaving of Christendom, pp. 493)

Note well that the Pope specifically let the Inquisition handle it, rather than himself, because he had no intention of making an infallible declaration on the matter with his supreme authority. At the same time, he did want the Church to address it, so the task fell on the Inquisition. Was the Church wrong? Yes. Was the Church attempting to exercise its charism of infallibility? No. As explained above, the Pope specifically did not address the matter himself, for that very reason.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

In addition, lest you ask a further question on the matter, the Church does admit the possibility of error in her ordinary Magisterium. Specific cases fall to theologians, as the Holy See notes on its document on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian:

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed."

The "very way" in which the Pope expressed the aforementioned condemnations was through a Sacred Congregation, rather than through the supreme authority of his office. So yes, the Church did err in her ordinary Magisterium, and as I have layed out, this poses no problem within Catholic theology.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Cam42]

Galileo again?

Sheesh.....

[quote]Was the Church correct in its interpretation of scripture in this case?[/quote]

The Church is never wrong.

The men who did the interpretation were not correct. They incorrectly applied scripture to a scientific prinicple. And it has been subsequently proven that both parties were wrong, both the Coperincan theory and the Geocentric theory are incorrect. They misconstrued the situation. However, this was not a matter of infalliblity, since it had nothing to do with faith and morals, but rather with science. Therefore, it is not bound to the same set of rules as those you are trying to discuss. We have been over this on another thread, how about sticking to the topic at hand.

Getting back to the concepts of the topic, how about responding to my post and discussing your own topic.

[quote]Well, at least she did up until she recognized that she had been in error.[/quote]

How about some documentation for that claim?

Cam

[LittleLes]

No Eremite,

The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case. Apologists trying to save the day then claim that this was only a mistake of the ordinary magisterium and hence not really an infallible teaching after all.

But the teaching that the earth does not move falls under
the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium, not the ordinary - that which was always universally taught (at least up until about 1700) which "holy mother church held and holds."

as well as

Vatican I's "infallible" teaching on the Church's "must hold as true" interpretation of scripture.

Thus a error in the Church's interpretation of scripture became a matter of record. It, of course, doesn't matter if Galileo really proved his entire theory or not. It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.

Lets look at another error in scripture.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case.[/quote]

No Littleles, your assumption is incorrect. You are applying the concept of infalliblity to a position where it is outside of its scope. Infallibility does not apply to anything other than faith and morals.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO SCIENCE.

And the men who made the decision made a mistake. Men are sinful, therefore they can and do make mistakes. This has been explained and re-explained to you. You cannot "bulldog" this issue.

I would like to see proof that infalliblity applies to anything other than faith and morals. [b]Please show where the Church says that infalliblity can be applied to anything other than faith and morals.[/b]

Back up this assumption with proof, not uninformed opinion.

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]No Eremite,

The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case[/quote]

Did I not say just that? My exact words, verbatim:

[quote]Was the Church wrong? Yes. [/quote]

[quote]Apologists trying to save the day then claim that this was only a mistake of the ordinary magisterium and hence not really an infallible teaching after all.[/quote]

There's no need to "save the day", because it's a fact. And you have not responded to what I posted. Please, don't keep giving one line responses that don't address the actual arguments.

It is a matter of historical fact that Pope Paul V did not address the matter himself, because he had no intention of exercising his supreme Apostolic authority. Furthermore, he did so at the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the greatest Saints in Church history. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope purposely did not exercise his infallible authority. I have further proven that the Church admits the possibility of error in her ordinary Magisterium. Because Paul V explicitly left the matter to be dealt with by the Ordinary Magisterium, without invoking the his infallible authority, there is absolutely no problem posed with the Church putting forward an erring interpretation of Scripture.

[quote]Vatican I's "infallible" teaching on the Church's "must hold as true" interpretation of scripture.[/quote]

Yes, it must. Even non-infallible teachings necessitate a "religious submission of intellect and will". They differ from infallible teachings in that they can be amended by the Church.

[quote]Thus a error in the Church's interpretation of scripture became a matter of record[/quote]

I have already said this, and have already show why it poses no problem for Catholic theology.

[quote]It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.[/quote]

Pope Urban presents a different story:

"Pope Urban VIII received Galileo with great honor on six separate occasions when he was in Rome in 1624, and stated 'that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so,' though he immediately added 'that there was no erason to fear that a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming" (Carroll, "The Cleaving of Christendom", pp. 537)

It's interesting that for a doctrine so firmly, and infallibly believed by the Church, a personage such as Pope Urban VIII would speak in such ways of it. The condemnations of the Inquisition came after a falling out with Galileo, but as already layed out, were purposely issued without the infallible authority of the Pope. Furthermore, Carroll cites another authority:

"In the words of Petro Redondi (no friend of the Church) 'this heresy was inquisitorial--that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal--both according to the words of criminal heresiology of the period and as reported by the most serious juridical scholars of the affair'" ("The Cleaving of Christendom", pp. 539)

[quote]It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.[/quote]

You need to break out of this modus operandi whereby you give one sentence responses to what we write, repeat your opinions ten times, and then do the hokey poke exclaiming how you've "proven" your argument. You haven't proven anything. I have quoted one historian and one relevant Magisterial document on the nature of the Ordinary Magisterium. You haven't responded to anything I've written. It's growing tiring.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]No Littleles, your assumption is incorrect. You are applying the concept of infalliblity to a position where it is outside of its scope. Infallibility does not apply to anything other than faith and morals.[/quote]

The condemnations of the Inquisition go beyond the scientific theory, but rather, address the proper interpretation of Scripture, which is within the Church's authority to do. So it's correct that they were not infallible, but not because of the scientific theory, but because there was explicitly no intention on the Pope's part to invoke infallible authority. Had the Pope addressed the matter himself, it would probably be a different story. The Spirit of God has a way of preventing things like that though.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite,

You are showing promise. Of course the issue in the Galileo matter involved the interpretation of scripture. Some apologists try to say faith and morals were not involved. But the plain meaning of words in the Condemnation itself makes it clear that the central issue was the Church's interpretation of scripture and that's squarely in the "faith" area.

However, let me make one point clear. The infallibility involved was not papal ex cathedra. It was by way of both the Extraordinary Magisterium (ie an ecumeniccal council) and the constant teaching of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

And poor Apotheoum and Jmjtina would have been most distrubed that all those theologians, scripture experts, and members of the Holy Office despite all their degrees in theology, were flat wrong in what they taught! The earth does move!!!!



LittleLes

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[jmjtina]

This is really confusing and frustrating. All I read is your personal opinion and interpretation, opening threads without answering the ones you left open and unanswered (from Cam and Todd) and no proof that you actually know what you are talking about.

There needs to be some kind of understanding before we can even move on.

God Bless.

As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

[jmjtina]

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


It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.


Anti-scientific?



The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.


Clinging to Tradition?



Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.


Galileo "Confronts" Rome



Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.


Tortured for His Beliefs?



In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.


Infallibility



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.