The Spanish Inquisition

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 11:25 AM'] 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? [/quote]
No, that is not it....if you would respond to the topic rather than attempting to mislead onto a tangential argument, things would be find.

However, you don't do that. You purposely lead into tangents in order to "muddy the waters." I see through you....

Like I said on another thread, I am not going to engage you again. You are not honest about what you do here.....you are intentional in your misleadings....

When you decide to be honest again, perhaps I will re-engage, until then, I will simply expose you for the sham you are.....

Charity is telling the truth....

Cam

[philothea]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 11 2005, 01:21 PM'] However, you don't do that. You purposely lead into tangents in order to "muddy the waters." I see through you....
[/quote]
I have noticed when LittleLes gets into a topic, it's no longer worth reading .

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 11:19 AM']

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 [/quote]
THe statement makes no Claim to scientific infallability, ergo it is not wrong. Was Galileo was Charged with heresy, yes, was that Charge improper, perhaps. However, that is another issue entirely, The Fact is that the Church made no claim to be infallable on scientific matters and so if Her interpretaion of Scriptual issues on Matters of Science was incorrect that in no way invalidates the statment on interpretation on matters of Faith.
However I would point out that Galileo was wrong his Philosophy was wrong and his Science was wrong, Sun moves, and as I said Earth can be shown quite scientificly to not move at all.


Vatican II made no changes in the declaration of Infallability, it defined what Faith and Morals is, it defined it in a way that contradicts what you say the Church ment and so you say the Church changed it's position, but it did not, it is precisely to define such things once they are an issue that Councils are called, the Church doesn't ever call Councils just to randomly speculate only to answer specific issues.

And your comment about Bishops being declared heretics because of there vote shows a deep lack of understanding of the Church.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 01:40 PM'] I have noticed when LittleLes gets into a topic, it's no longer worth reading . [/quote]

Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson.

Edited May 12, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 02:26 PM'] The Fact is that the Church made no claim to be infallable on scientific matters and so if Her interpretaion of Scriptual issues on Matters of Science was incorrect that in no way invalidates the statment on interpretation on matters of Faith.
[/quote]
The Church's claim to be infallible in its interpertation of scripture regarding faith and morals does not contain an exception for scientific error on the Church's part.

That the earth doesn't move was the interperetation of the scripture the Church "defined" as a matter of faith in the Galileo matter. It was not a scientific issue but a scriptural one. It was the church's infallibility in interpeting scripture that was the issue. Once again, read the Holy Office document itself.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:20 PM'] The Church's claim to be infallible in its interpertation of scripture regarding faith and morals does not contain an exception for scientific error on the Church's part.

That the earth doesn't move was the interperetation of the scripture the Church "defined" as a matter of faith in the Galileo matter. It was not a scientific issue but a scriptural one. It was the church's infallibility in interpeting scripture that was the issue. Once again, read the Holy Office document itself.

LittleLes [/quote]
umm I have and as i said you are trying to backwards enginner the issue, which is false. While the accusation agianst Galileo may have been on improper grounds, which I have already said may or may not be the case that is a differant discussion altogether( ( I am not conceding that, just saying it is a differant debate) I am saying that the Churchs claim to infallability with regards to Scripture is in no way invalidated, as the supposed error was niether in the realm of Faith or of Morals but of Science. That the charge was made agianst Galileo over the interpretation of Scripture is not being contested, the fact that the Church did not err in Her interpretation of Scripture in matters of Faith and Morals is what you are contesting. However she did not, because there is no claim to infallability in scientific matters.

Now all of that being said Galileo was not condemned because of his Scientific theories but because he attacked philosophy and tried to create new Theology, If you would care to look at the very document that you have quoted you will see it is that for which he is Charged, his philosophical absurdities. He crossed the line between the two and was thus condemned by the Church quite accordingly.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:11 PM']
Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson. [/quote]
Or the Pope....

I'd be willing to bet that Weakland and Mahony are on your Christmas list though...

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:11 PM']
Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson. [/quote]
your not challenging our belief system you are disputing it, challenges require compelling arguements which you are not presenting. You are simply harping on an issue which has been answered decades ago.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 12 2005, 09:27 AM'] your not challenging our belief system you are disputing it, challenges require compelling arguements which you are not presenting. You are simply harping on an issue which has been answered decades ago. [/quote]

But never answered adequately. Just repeatedly.

If some people keep repeating the same error over a long period of time, does that make it "Tradition" or just extended "lets pretend it isn't so"?

Edited May 12, 2005 by LittleLes

[ardillacid]

"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."-St. Augustine

[ardillacid]

We as Catholics do not rely on scripture for our knowledge of science.

[ardillacid]

Littleles, I would love to engage you on the topic of Galileo more extensively. If you are up to it, start a new thread on it. This thread is supposed to be about the Spanish Inquisition.
Thanks

[ardillacid]

I think maybe we shall look at the Spanish Inquisition from a different angle. Do you believe that the purpose of this inquisition was evil?

[Jaime]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 12 2005, 01:37 PM'] Littleles, I would love to engage you on the topic of Galileo more extensively. If you are up to it, start a new thread on it. This thread is supposed to be about the Spanish Inquisition.
Thanks [/quote]
Dear God in Heaven.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ardillacid

We've gone over Les's assertions on Gallileo ad nauseum in all the threads he started. Like this one Gallileo had nothing to do with the topic. However we discussed it into the ground.

Primacy of Peter
Infallibility
Did Christ intend to start the Church
Interpretation of Scripture

I believe the Gallileo has been sufficiently covered and refuted in these threads. I know we're hitting summer repeats but....

[Cam42]

Oh sweet God in heaven.....I agree with hot stuff....we don't need this all over again....

[ardillacid]

oh, sorry guys.

[Winchester]

I've never thought of the Spanish as all that inquisitive. I mean, what great idea have they come up with in the past couple centuries? They didn't even come up with Spanish. That was invented by a Libyan who wanted to talk to his wife about sex when his mother-in-law was in the room (she'd been widowed at an early age and was ever-present, a constant strain on the marriage until she succumbed to a deadly case of rickets.)

It's worth noting that the Spanish have thirty words for love, but none for anti perspirant/deoderant.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 8 2005, 06:11 PM']

Didn't have the technology for painless deaths that we have today? So they decided to burn them at the stake, is that it?

Ever hear of beheading. That's even how they did St. Paul in.

[/quote]
burning at the stake was asphyxiation. If they did it properly you died before the flames ever reached you. if auto-erotic asphyxiation is any indication of the discomfort in the process (gross), surely there are worse ways to die.

[KizlarAgha]

A better rebuttal to the idea of burning is this:

The Church didn't do it, the secular government did.

Burning was also meant to purify the soul of the offender.

Public burnings had an important effect on the cohesiveness of the community.

You can't really judge medieval methods of execution based on their brutality - execution is inherently brutal. So if your problem is with capital punishment that's fine, but if your problem is the method then that's just silly. A person burned at the stake is just as dead as a person who was beheaded, shot, stabbed, or hung. And if you ask the dead person, they probably found them all to be pretty brutal.

[toledo_jesus]

indeed, the secular gov't factoid is always good too...