The Spanish Inquisition

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 02:51 PM'] Sure, Don John,

Vatican I, Session 3, 24 April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2, Revelation # 8:

"Now since the decree on the inspiration 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 decress and declare it meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals belonging as they do to establishing 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. It is not permissable for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

See also Chapter 3, On Faith # 8:
Wherefore by divine and Catholic faith all these things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God found in the scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed whether by solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

Specific enough, Don? [/quote]
No it's fine Kilroy as that is what the Church teaches about the correctness about the interpretation of Scripture forever, however I see not how this is related to the issue as the movement of the Sun is not a matter of Faith and Morals. Ergo, it has no bearing on the subject at hand.


So can you show me a paragraph which claims infallable interpretation of Scripture on matters of Science.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 10 2005, 02:54 PM'] Wow littleless, you are aware that St. Joan died well before 1870 right?


Try a little closer to her timeframe for your stuff... unless you're trying to apply the future to the past.  (Interesting theory I suppose). [/quote]
I'm having some difficulty understanding what you are saying. My response to Don John was to his asking about the Vatican I decree dealing with the mandatory acceptance of the Church's interpretation of scripture.

I think it is related to the heresy charge against Galileo. Joan's was a different heresy charge. She got burned at the stake; Galileo got house arrest for life. a better deal all things considered.

How are you associating this document with Joan of Arc?

I can't follow your connection.

Edited May 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 04:06 PM'] I'm having some difficulty understanding what you are saying. My response to Don John was to his asking about the Vatican I decree dealing with the mandatory acceptance of the Church's interpretation of scripture.

I think it is related to the heresy charge against Galileo. Joan's was a different heresy charge. She got burned at the stake; Galileo got house arrest for life. a better deal all things considered.

How are you associating this document with Joan of Arc?

I can't follow your connection. [/quote]
I think she thought you where addressing Joan.

[Don John of Austria]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm"]here[/url]


on war and the justice of war.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 03:30 PM'] No it's fine Kilroy as that is what the Church teaches about the correctness about the interpretation of Scripture forever, however I see not how this is related to the issue as the movement of the Sun is not a matter of Faith and Morals. Ergo, it has no bearing on the subject at hand.


So can you show me a paragraph which claims infallable interpretation of Scripture on matters of Science. [/quote]
No Don John,

The old "that's science not faith" ploy won't work. While predictably apologists like to use that argument rather than to admit that the Church misinterpreted scripture in the Galileo case, that argument won't fly.

The Church's interpretation dealt with a matter of faith. See again Ps 104:5 about God setting the earth's foundations so that the earth could not be moved. Also see the scriptural account to the sun stopping in it's course in the Joshua miracle. And there are other scriptural passages as well involving the unmovable nature of the earth and the sun's movement.

The claim that the Galileo matter dealt with science and not faith is flawed and disproved by the fact that the charge against him was for heresy in not accepting the Church's interpretation of scripture. Again, heresy involves faith, not science.

But if you are having difficulty understanding how the claim that the earth did not move was a matter of faith, perhaps we can illustrate other Church misinterpretations of scripture in which faith or morals are clearly at issue.

However, I think we should move it to a different thread since we are getting quite off the original topic here. .

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 04:21 PM'] No Don John,

The old "that's science not faith" ploy won't work. While predictably apologists like to use that argument rather than to admit that the Church misinterpreted scripture in the Galileo case, that argument won't fly.

The Church's interpretation dealt with a matter of faith. See again Ps 104:5 about God setting the earth's foundations so that the earth could not be moved. Also see the scriptural account to the sun stopping in it's course in the Joshua miracle. And there are other scriptural passages as well involving the unmovable nature of the earth and the sun's movement.

The claim that the Galileo matter dealt with science and not faith is flawed and disproved by the fact that the charge against him was for heresy in not accepting the Church's interpretation of scripture. Again, heresy involves faith, not science.

But if you are having difficulty understanding how the claim that the earth did not move was a matter of faith, perhaps we can illustrate other Church misinterpretations of scripture in which faith or morals are clearly at issue.

However, I think we should move it to a different thread since we are getting quite off the original topic here. .

LittleLes [/quote]
there is no ploy your interpretation is wrong, the Council makes no claim to Scientific infallability ergo yoru attempt at proof is invalid. While my field of Choice is history my field of necessity is Science ( I am a science teacher, as well as a librarian) Your " proof " simply doesn't hold water, the paragraph makes no claim to Scientific infallability.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 10 2005, 02:49 PM'] Provide your documentation first as you have been asked numerous times already. I'll research mine. [/quote]
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, Columbia University Press, NY p 420

"To escape responsibility the English turned her over to the ecclesiastical court at Rouen, where she was tried for heresy and witchcraft by the French clerics who supported the English."

Note: An ecclesiastical court. And clerics are Church officials.

LittleLes

What documentation have I been asked for "numberous time already"?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 04:36 PM'] there is no ploy your interpretation is wrong, the Council makes no claim  to Scientific infallability ergo yoru attempt at proof is invalid.  While my field of Choice is history my field of necessity is Science ( I am a science teacher, as well as a librarian)  Your " proof "  simply doesn't hold water, the paragraph makes no claim to Scientific infallability. [/quote]


The infallibility of the Church's interpretation of scripture, not scientific infallibility, is the issue. We are dealing with a matter of faith as the document itself states. Vatican I's decree on scripture is also dealing with a matter of faith. Again, lets look at the Church's condemnation and note the meaning of the words.

"1 The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and FORMALLY HERETICAL; BECAUSE IT IS EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURES." (Emphasis is mine)."

"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." (Emphasis is mine).

The inerrancy of scriptures and faith and heresy (a sin against faith, not science)are clearly stated by the Holy Office to be the issue.

But since there can be no reasonable dispute as to the facts - the Church document itself records them - an apologist's only rebuttal is to try to argue that this was really not a matter of faith after all in spite of the Church's claim. Clearly, by the very wording of the condemnation, it can be seen to have been so.

Edited May 11, 2005 by LittleLes

[Aloysius]

if we want to be technical, and you appear to want to be technical which is fine, cause we also don't loose on technicalities either. just to be clear my take on it is that I wouldn't interpret the words of that document so technically, I see it as a condemnation of the entire philosophical grounds by which he determined that the earth moves and all of those heretical notions that surround it.

but if you really want technicalities, the Holy Office has no flaw even if technically broken down. The earth does not move. that would mean that the earth has some sort of mobile power. The gravitation of the sun actually moves the earth around it. The earth is moved, it does not in itself move.

if you think that absurd, I equally think your technical interpretation of the Holy Office's condemnation of Galileo to be absurd. It is clearly condemning the entire philosophical grounds that gave him the conclusion that the earth moved, it is clearly condemning the plethora of heretical views that surround and are assosiated with thinking that the earth moves.

but again, if you insist on the technicality that it explicitly condemns the idea of anearth that moves, I equally insist on the technicality that the earth does not move, the sun moves it. the earth is the center of the world speaking, and it doesn't move.

also, you'll notice that it technically condemned the idea that the sun is unmovable... ahead of our time are we? way to go Holy Office, because of the big bang all galaxies are moving away from each other, the sun moves!

I love being a smartass pay no attention to me well, pay attention to my point at how absurd it is for you to attempt to prove us wrong on technicalities. Galileo was a heretic for the many ideas that stemmed out of his idea of a moving earth and immovable sun.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 10 2005, 10:01 PM'] if we want to be technical, and you appear to want to be technical which is fine, cause we also don't loose on technicalities either. just to be clear my take on it is that I wouldn't interpret the words of that document so technically, I see it as a condemnation of the entire philosophical grounds by which he determined that the earth moves and all of those heretical notions that surround it.

but if you really want technicalities, the Holy Office has no flaw even if technically broken down. The earth does not move. that would mean that the earth has some sort of mobile power. The gravitation of the sun actually moves the earth around it. The earth is moved, it does not in itself move.

if you think that absurd, I equally think your technical interpretation of the Holy Office's condemnation of Galileo to be absurd. It is clearly condemning the entire philosophical grounds that gave him the conclusion that the earth moved, it is clearly condemning the plethora of heretical views that surround and are assosiated with thinking that the earth moves.

but again, if you insist on the technicality that it explicitly condemns the idea of anearth that moves, I equally insist on the technicality that the earth does not move, the sun moves it. the earth is the center of the world speaking, and it doesn't move.

also, you'll notice that it technically condemned the idea that the sun is unmovable... ahead of our time are we? way to go Holy Office, because of the big bang all galaxies are moving away from each other, the sun moves!

I love being a smartass pay no attention to me [/quote]
Hi Aloyious,

Whether actively (it moves itself) or passsively (it is moved by something else), the earth moves.

The Holy Office denied this on a scriptural basis, but the underlying issue is whether or not the Church always interprets scripture correctly.

Catholics are suppose to believe that the Church is infallible in interpreting scripture regarding matters of faith and morals if one believes Vatican I, or everything if one believes Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus deus. I think he was the last pope to teach scriptual inerrrancy.

[Aloysius]

Actually I believe all that, the Church is infallible in its interpretation of scripture about faith and morals. my faith tells me the earth is the very center of the universe, the most important thing in all creation, and that scripture is the inerrant word of God... ask Pope Benedict XVI and he'll tell you that as well. We don't change our teachings missy.

saying the earth moves is implying that it moves itself. again, I'm simply illustrating the absurdity of interpreting this by a technical breakdown of its explicit statements, but if this is to be technically interpretted that is why it is technically right.

if this is to be interpretted correctly, it is a condemnation of the entire philosophy Galileo had gotten himself tangled up in with many many heretical beliefs assosiated with his unproven claim that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun is the center of the universe. such a belief includes thinking that the sun was not made for the earth, but the earth was made for the sun. not true, the sole purpose of the creation of the sun is to nourish the life on Earth especially God's most important creature- man. many other heretical beliefs were assosiated with this, and they were all false.

[Cam42]

1. [quote]Sorry Ordo,

Read on the web Pope Innocent VIII's Bull "Summis desiderantes" of 1484. This became know as the Witches Bull.

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/witches1.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/witches1.html[/url]

It authorized Fr. Henry Institoris and Fr Jacob Sprenger, both Dominican theologians, to begin an Inquisition in Germany to discover "heresy" and witches.

They in turn wrote "The Hammer of Witches" (also on the web) describing the methods of torture to be followed in forcing those accused of heresy and witchcraft to confess and implicate others.

Once again, apologists try to avoid admitting what is historically inescapable and to blame someone else for the Church's actions.[/quote]

2. [quote]I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the reason why Galileo was condemned. It can be found in the Holy Office's document itself.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, has rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by the Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit:...and that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe, AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DECLARED AS PROBABLE AFTER HAVING BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE..."

In short, Galileo did not accept the Church's interpretation of scripture. (It might be noted that both the Council of Trent and Vatican taught that the Church interpreted scripture correctly -an infallible teaching???) 

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

But the Church was wrong on both counts, the immovability of the earth, and its interpretation of scripture. QED [/quote]

3. [quote]Ah! The old "everybody did it so it must be OK argument" 

I thought you were maintaining the claim that the Church was founded by God and, as a divine institution, it would be kept from falling into error. Isn't that the real basis of the claim for "infallibility." 

Do you think that the institutional Church is a very fallible human creation after all????[/quote]

4. [quote]No. What you are looking for are the Decrees on Scripture which rules how it should be interpreted, ie as the Church has and does interpret scripture.

There need not be a ruling on each book, chapter, and verse.[/quote]

5. [quote]Sure, Don John,

Vatican I, Session 3, 24 April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2, Revelation # 8:

"Now since the decree on the inspiration 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 decress and declare it meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals belonging as they do to establishing 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. It is not permissable for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

See also Chapter 3, On Faith # 8:
Wherefore by divine and Catholic faith all these things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God found in the scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed whether by solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

Specific enough, Don?[/quote]

6. [quote]The infallibility of the Church's interpretation of scripture, not scientific infallibility, is the issue. We are dealing with a matter of faith as the document itself states. Vatican I's decree on scripture is also dealing with a matter of faith. Again, lets look at the Church's condemnation and note the meaning of the words.

"1 The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and FORMALLY HERETICAL; BECAUSE IT IS EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURES." (Emphasis is mine)."

"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." (Emphasis is mine).

The inerrancy of scriptures and faith and heresy (a sin against faith, not science)are clearly stated by the Holy Office to be the issue.

But since there can be no reasonable dispute as to the facts - the Church document itself records them - an apologist's only rebuttal is to try to argue that this was really not a matter of faith after all in spite of the Church's claim. Clearly, by the very wording of the condemnation, it can be seen to have been so.[/quote]

That would be six, count 'em six attempts at HIJACKING the thread. Take it from someone who knows how to handle brother Littleles....keep him on topic. Spanish Inquisition. That is the topic...not SPAMISH Inquistion, which is what he is putting you through. Just some advice.

Cam

[ardillacid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 9 2005, 12:45 PM'] I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the reason why Galileo was condemned. It can be found in the Holy Office's document itself.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, has rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by the Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit:...and that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe, AND THAT AN OPINION MAY BE HELD AND DECLARED AS PROBABLE AFTER HAVING BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE..."

[/quote]
[QUOTE]

Littleles,

Why do you ignore the fact that this document specifically states "vehemently SUSPECTED"? (emphasis mine)To me, suspected is very different from being condemned Everything is suspected...a doctrine which is false...contrary to Holy Sriptures. Maybe I'm absolutely blind but there is no EXPLICIT statement that it is a heresy. When read as a whole, not individual sentences, it seems simply a reprimand, not condemnation.

[ardillacid]

Sorry Cam, I just find it hard when Littleles throws out accusations against the Church about a topic not on hand to let them go answered.

[Aloysius]

woah, I completely missed that... nice job.

anyway, there it is plain as day. that suspected really applies to all the rest that is said in that document.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 07:53 PM']

The infallibility of the Church's interpretation of scripture, not scientific infallibility, is the issue. We are dealing with a matter of faith as the document itself states. Vatican I's decree on scripture is also dealing with a matter of faith. Again, lets look at the Church's condemnation and note the meaning of the words.

"1 The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and FORMALLY HERETICAL; BECAUSE IT IS EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURES." (Emphasis is mine)."

"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." (Emphasis is mine).

The inerrancy of scriptures and faith and heresy (a sin against faith, not science)are clearly stated by the Holy Office to be the issue.

But since there can be no reasonable dispute as to the facts - the Church document itself records them - an apologist's only rebuttal is to try to argue that this was really not a matter of faith after all in spite of the Church's claim. Clearly, by the very wording of the condemnation, it can be seen to have been so. [/quote]
No the infallability of interpretation of Scripture on matters of Faith and Morals is all that is claimed, the infallability on matters scientific is not claimed at all. Galileo was suspect of heresy because of his rejection of the scientific understanding of the Scripture without the ability to prove it. I will tell you in the scientific community today one will meet much the same response as one did then if one denies a scientific dogma without proof. It is just that now Physicist arn't running the government. Still the Church never claimed scientific infallability which is what you are agueing, the fact that a Churchman may or may not have said it was a matter of Faith is immaterial, the " Church" did not--- no declaration of such was made by any offical organ of the Church, no Bull says it, no Council declared it, nothing. THat is why I asked you for a referance and you give me Vatican I's declaration of the infallability of the Churchs understanding of SCripture on matters of Faith and Morals. DO you think that the bishops who wrote that where stupid? They knew that Earth revolved around Sun ( technically it is properly refered to as Sun or if you perfer Sol not "the sun") before that was ever written, they also knew well of the Galileo issue, even if you don't believe in Counciller insperation at all, or even in God at all do you really believe the Bishops would have made a Claim so easily countered? The Decree does not, nor was it ever intended to claim infallable interpretation of Scripture in matters of Science, the church can infact be wrong on those areas, and in this case she was( unless you want to argue some really weird physics in which case I can 'prove' that Earth in fact stays still and the rest of the universe is moveing, realitivity theory allows for that, Newtonian physics does not but Realitivity does. According to Realitivity all points of referance are equally valid, if you want to manipulate the equations a bit you can "prove" the moon goes faster than light too.) So we acknowledge that; so what, no claim to infallability on interpretation of scpritures in matters of science is made here so your position is untenable. ( of Course Realitivity as said before allows for a strict interpretation to be ' correct' but I am not argueing that now it seems to me that it is one of those areas that Realitivity starts to move into the realm of the silly.)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 10 2005, 10:44 PM'] [QUOTE]

Littleles,

Why do you ignore the fact that this document specifically states "vehemently SUSPECTED"? (emphasis mine)To me, suspected is very different from being condemned Everything is suspected...a doctrine which is false...contrary to Holy Sriptures. Maybe I'm absolutely blind but there is no EXPLICIT statement that it is a heresy. When read as a whole, not individual sentences, it seems simply a reprimand, not condemnation. [/QUOTE]


The use of the term "vehemently suspected" is to allow the accused the opportunity to retract his statement. Which when faced with torture, Galileo did. Smart move!

If the Holy office had said he was guilty of heresy, Galileo would have been burned at the stake. But he was on friendly terms with the Pope, so they gave him a break.

Edited May 11, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 08:30 AM'] No the infallability of interpretation of Scripture on matters of Faith and Morals is all that is claimed, the infallability on matters scientific is not claimed at all. [/quote]
No. The indictment of Galileo is very specific. He suggested that the Church's interpretation of scripture was in error. This is a matter of faith, not science.

That a scientific principle was involved is beside the point. It was the questioning of scripture after it had been interpreted by the Church that was the issue. His claim that the earth moved and the sun didn't circle the earth contradicts what is said in a number of passages of scripture.

The story of the sun stopping "in its course" in Joshua and the earth being set upon its foundations never to be moved in Psalms are perhaps the best know passaged that Galileo's theory questioned.

It was "that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons"

Whether his opinion had a scientific, or mathematical or artistic, or any other basis is beside the point. It was contrary to what had been declared and defined as contrary to scripture, and was, therefore heretical, that is, contrary to faith.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 08:30 AM'] DO you think that the bishops who wrote that where stupid? They knew that Earth revolved around Sun ( technically it is properly refered to as Sun or if you perfer Sol not "the sun")  before that was ever written, they also knew well of the Galileo issue, even if you don't believe in Counciller insperation at all, or even in God at all do you really believe the Bishops would have made a Claim so easily countered? [/quote]


Please note that Vatican I was only restating the teaching of Trent from 1563. The Galileo matter occured in 1630. So, no, the Trent's members, who made the infallible statement initially, didn't anticipate the conflict.

I don't think that the bishops were "stupid" but very mallible and did what Pius IX told them. That's how he himself becamse "infallible" by their majority vote. Of course, if they hadn't so voted and the measure carried, they would be heretics and out of a job.

Vatican I, not wanting to publically admit that an error in Trent's teaching was probable, simply stuck with Trent's teaching. In fact, it was only with Vatican II, that the "faith and morals" claim was modified not to include all issues of faith and morals.

Also overlooked by both Trent and Vatican I, was the Church's scripturally based moral approval of chattel slavery. (The form in which slaves are the propety of their owners and all their offsprig are slaves also).

LittleLes

Edited May 11, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 10 2005, 10:32 PM']

That would be six, count 'em six attempts at HIJACKING the thread. Take it from someone who knows how to handle brother Littleles....keep him on topic. Spanish Inquisition. That is the topic...not SPAMISH Inquistion, which is what he is putting you through. Just some advice.

Cam [/quote]
I get it. If I don't respond I'm dodging the question. But if I do, I'm hijacking the thread. Is that it?