The Interpretation of Scripture

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]It was by way of both the Extraordinary Magisterium (ie an ecumeniccal council) and the constant teaching of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.[/quote]

First of all, I have no idea what you are referring to in regard to the Extraordinary Magisterium. No ecumenical Council dealt with the matter. The Inquisition is a Roman congregation, not an Ecumenical council. Furthermore, This is not a matter of the constant teaching of the Church, because as I pointed out, Pope Urban VIII had no problem with Galileo's thesis in theory, so long as he didn't present it as fact. The condemnation of the Inquisition came after Galileo insulted his longtime friend, Urban VIII. As I have already layed out in great detail, a condemnation from the Inquisition is not infallible, as is evidenced by historian Warrenn Carroll and Petro Redondi, whom he cited. You have yet to provide a single argument from ANY sources that a judgement from the Inquisition was and is regarded as an exercise of the Church's infallible Magisterial authority.

[quote]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!!![/quote]

The ire of the Inquisition was over Scripture, not science. That is, their objection was NOT to Galileo's scientific theories, but what they perceived as an attack on the inerrancy of Scripture. Of course, there were quite a few who admitted the POSSIBILITY that Scripture was not to be taken literally in this particular case, among them Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, and Pope Urban VIII, all the relevant figures involved in this discussion.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[jmjtina]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 13 2005, 11:29 AM'] 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!!!!
[/quote]
Wow, I don't know if this is arrogance, or ignorance, or both.

same old argument, new person to discuss it with. 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.

God Bless.

[Cam42]

[quote]Condemnation itself makes it clear that the central issue was the Church's interpretation of scripture and that's squarely in the "faith" area.[/quote]

Incorrect. You are wrong. I would like to see documentation to prove that statement.

How about engaging the questions that Appy and I have asked.

Also, you are misreading Eremite if you think that he is supporting your position. While I disagree with him on the assertion that the Church is wrong, I do know that his position and yours are not the same.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Another error in the Church's scriptural interpretation was the Church's teaching on the moral legitimacy of slavery based on scripture (and natural law) arguments.

Addressing this causes a near schizophrenic response from apologists. They quickly produce papal writings which, they claim, prove that the Church never approved of slavery. However, these papal writings (1) were almost always written after 1500, and (2) a careful reading discloses that they condemned the slave trade, but not slavery itself.

The most recent teaching that the institution of slavery is in keeping with scripture (and the natural law) is that of the Holy Office in 1866. Even the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, which dates from 1912, still maintains that position. (See The Ethical Aspects of Slavery).

Leander, whom I believe was a Franciscan, best summed up the Church's teaching regarding the moral legitimacy of slavery in his 1668 "Questions of Moral Theology" Tome VIII, De Quarto Praecepto, . I Q.3. (No doubt many will want to check this out at their library )

"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture...All theologians are unanimous on this."

So again we have a situation in which infallibility, based on Vatican I ruling on the Church's interpretation of scripture and the constant Church teaching (until relatively recently), has proven to be in error.

Little Les

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Now that someone other than me has made this statement, would you please try and answer it?

Cam

[Cam42]

What does slavery have to do with this?

Didn't someone say something about shotgunning once?

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

Little,

You have once again refused to deal with any of our arguments in a substantive manner. And now, you want to bring up a whole new topic. You are abusing this phorum, IMO. I'm bowing out of this discussion, because I'm getting a headache from all these circles we keep traveling in.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

In Galileo's day the world, solar system, and universe had essentially the same meaning.

But once again, that is not is what is at issue. The Church, based on its interpretation of scripture (infallible via constant teaching and infallible via Vatican I decree), claimed that the earth did not move. But it does. Hence the error in the interpretation of scripture.

Little Les

[jmjtina]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 13 2005, 12:02 PM'] In Galileo's day the world, solar system, and universe had essentially the same meaning.
[/quote]
Your statement is incorrect. No teacher teaches that. But then again, alot of it is your own interpretations anyway.

Slavery is a fairly complex matter, of course. We find it a simple issue today only because we are not forced by circumstances to consider all of its aspects clearly. First, let us note that numerous passages in the Old Testament justified slavery under conditions which were designed to ensure humane treatment and (under proper circumstances) ultimate freedom.[19]
In ancient times, slavery was seen as justly arising from one of three circumstances: (1) capture in war, (2) punishment for crime, and (3) obligation for debt. Enslavement for debt would be the least reconcilable to Catholic doctrine, although the Church had to deal with it as an historical reality in Roman law, reacting prudentially in order to mitigate the evil without creating greater ones. Regarding prisoners of war, however, more deserves to be said. Biblical slavery could be seen as a reform, a lesser evil made necessary by the inability of societies to hold war prisoners in idleness due to scarcity of resources. Release of prisoners was extremely impractical when wars lasted many generations, as did Israel's wars with her hostile neighbors, the Greek struggles with the Persian Empire, or the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. Humane slavery (always a Catholic requirement) was a superior option to the suicidal release of prisoners of war, the economic impossibility of simply imprisoning war captives, or the terribly inhumane alternative of executing captured enemies.
It is important to note that the Catholic Church in past centuries did not intend to endorse authoritatively any specific instances of slavery, but only the principle that slavery could be justified as the lesser of evils in certain circumstances. The situation surrounding ancient warfare illustrates one particular application of this principle. The same notion of the "lesser evil" was also applied to the question of the status of the children of slave mothers. Note that the eminent Jesuit moralist Cardinal Juan De Lugo "found slavery 'beyond the intention of nature,' but 'introduced to prevent greater evils,’"[21] This is also a clear extension of that principle to the conveyance of the mother's status to the children.
One can easily see that if the Church had attempted to bestow freedom upon the children of slaves, owners might well have denied the right of slaves to marry, with all the attendant evils that would involve, and owners might not have properly cared for the offspring of slaves—offspring over whom they would have enjoyed no property right.
Thus, we can see the complicated case for accepting slavery as a social condition arising from prolonged periods of warfare. John Locke's justification of slavery in his late 17th-Century work, <Two Treatises on Civil Government>, contains the same rationale as has been given here.[22] It will be recalled, of course, that much of modern slavery did not so originate, since innocent and non-belligerent persons were set upon (usually in Africa) and impressed into slavery without moral justification and in the most inhumane of conditions.
Finally, classical morality accepted the legitimacy of slavery for crime. This form of slavery, it would seem, can be easily justified, and under a different name, this penal slavery is still the practice of most nations. It is not accidental that in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wrote into that amendment an exception to the prohibition on involuntary servitude. The text of the 13th Amendment states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist...." Prisoners may be compelled to work, their liberties are often seriously curtailed, and although the vast majority remain in this condition for only a limited period of time, "life without parole" is an increasingly used option, as are finite sentences of such duration as to ensure that they constitute <de jure> life imprisonment.
The change of the Church's attitude toward slavery reflects the changed circumstances of the world more than it reflects any revolution in moral theology. Wars tend to be of shorter duration in the modern world (though often of far greater severity); nations often possess surpluses out of which they can feed and care for prisoners of war who are held as prisoners rather than as slaves as would have been the case in previous times, and most importantly, perhaps, civil authorities are willing, in general, not only to abolish slavery, but to extirpate those greater evils the avoidance of which made slavery's existence permissible. In this new environment, the Church may put greater emphasis on its statements that "slavery is evil"—[u]but it had never judged otherwise[/u]. The Church had done no more than proclaim that in other sets of social and historical circumstances, slavery represented the lesser of evils.


God Bless.

[Cam42]

[quote]The Church, based on its interpretation of scripture (infallible via constant teaching and infallible via Vatican I decree), claimed that the earth did not move.[/quote]

How many times do you need to hear that you are incorrect? We have shown you this multiple times. Prove it with hard proof. You cannot. Stop. There is no infallible teaching on this matter. It does not fall into the scope of infalliblity because it does not deal with faith and morals, contrary to your uniformed opinion.

Stop your opinionating and start applying proof to your posts. To make allusion to the documents, apply them. Or are you afraid that you cannot in a logical way?

Cam

[Paphnutius]

Has anyone thought that this has been beaten into the ground or at least making circles?

[LittleLes]

Ah yes. The old slavery was good for the slave argument. So what if the slave had no rights and all his children would be enslaved and worked or sold to a new owner. By observing his Christian master, he would learn about Christianity and "save his soul." So slavery was a good thing.

The significance of this claimed moral legitimacy of slavery - which we now recognize as a sin and contrary to the natural law - is that the Church's interpretation of scripture until relatively recent years endorsed it. Once again the interpretation that the church"has held and holds." Thus, an infallible moral teaching under boththe extraordinary and the universal ordinary magisterium.

Well, at least until it changed. Who said infallible teachings ar irreformable?

Little Les

[peach_cube]

Let's summarize,

LittleLes considers himself Catholic.

He does not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Because of this he cannot believe in the divinity of Christ.

Obviously he wouldn't believe in infalliblity if he sees error in the scriptures.

His positions are very similar to those of Budge and Bruce S.

Like them he is probably someone who was raised Catholic and then one day started to "take a closer look" and he magically discovered the errors of Catholicism. Like them he is most likely older and set in his ways. His faith seems to reside not in Christ but in Science and "Scholarship." His beliefs on the Scriptures mimics those of any secular college study bible commentary.

Because of this the debate will go nowhere. The issue that needs to be discussed is Christ. The other threads are fruitless without this. I don't know his meaning for being here. Perhaps he is making one last shot at Catholicism to give it a chance. Perhaps death has been on his mind of late and this has caused either doubt or bitterness in him. Regardless the issue needs to be Christ.

Littleles, who do you say Christ was?

[LittleLes]

I think the thread deals with the interpretation of scripture and C-Mother gets upset if we get off topic.

Still, I'll risk a short reply.

Christ was an first century itinerant preacher who advocated reform of Judaism and believed in, as did many during this period, the imminance of end times.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Once again the interpretation that the church"has held and holds." Thus, an infallible moral teaching under boththe extraordinary and the universal ordinary magisterium.[/quote]

P1. The Church studies and applies science in certain matters
P2. The Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals
-------------------------------------------
C. The Church teaches infallibly on matters of science.

What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

This is the reasoning that Littles is ascribing to. The fallacy is quite simple. However, I am not going to do your philosophy homework for you. It is glaring and obvious.

When you can answer this, then you can understand your error.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]I think the thread deals with the interpretation of scripture and C-Mother gets upset if we get off topic.[/quote]

Oh, it is more than c-mom. Does this mean that you are, finally, going to address the statements posed to you on this thread?

[quote]Christ was an first century itinerant preacher who advocated reform of Judaism and believed in, as did many during this period, the imminance of end times.[/quote]

Way to provide a half Arian answer. Are you denying the divine nature of Christ with that definition of Jesus Christ?

Cam

Edited March 13, 2005 by Cam42

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 13 2005, 06:35 PM']
Way to provide a half Arian answer. Are you denying the divine nature of Christ with that definition of Jesus Christ?
[/quote]
I believe since he doesn't feel the scriptures are a "reliable" source of information and also the ECF fathers he can reason as being either unreliable or ununified in their opinions, thus giving him a very divided picture of early christianity.

[Cam42]

[quote]Has anyone thought that this has been beaten into the ground or at least making circles?[/quote]

Yes

[LittleLes]

So far, its been shown that, despite its "infallible" claim ( Vatican I the universal ordinary magisterium) to always interpret scripture correctly, the Church:

(1) Was in error in insisting on the literal interpretation of Psalms and Chronicles that the earth does not move.

and

(2) On scriptural grounds (and the natural law as well) taught that slavery was morally legitimate.

and next

(3) Interpreted scripture to mean that the loaning of money for (any) interest to be a sin.


LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]So far, its been shown that, despite its "infallible" claim ( Vatican I the universal ordinary magisterium) to always interpret scripture correctly, the Church:

(1) Was in error in insisting on the literal interpretation of Psalms and Chronicles that the earth does not move.

and

(2) On scriptural grounds (and the natural law as well) taught that slavery was morally legitimate.

and next

(3) Interpreted scripture to mean that the loaning of money for (any) interest to be a sin[/quote]

By whom and with what proof? You have not done that. You have not even come close. There has been a point by point refutation of every single one of your points with stable and complete docuementation.

You are on very thin ice trying to prove that you have held up at all.

BTW, I do believe that this is the first time that usury has been brought up in this thread or any other for that matter. So (3) is totally out of place. Do you think that we don't read??????

How about trying to actually prove your assumptions and putting up a genuine effort in defending your position. This juvenile attempt is really quite fun. I am not really even trying all that hard.

Finally, I would really like to see how you respond to the incorrect argument that you put forth and I diagramed. I don't think that you can justify it or correct it, but I would really like to see the attempt.

Cam