A Contradiction?

[Raphael777]

To save you having to find it on the web yourself:

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;”

But the infallible pronouncement of the Council of Trent (and later Vatican I) notwithstanding, the earth is known to move and revolve around the sun. So the Church’s “declaration and defining” of scripture and what is “false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures” was an infallible error in this case.

I guess I must have missed the teaching that all juridical verdicts of the Inquisition were infallible

 

[adrift]

adrift;5945724:

JP Marat;5940220:

RESPONSE:

Infallibility is the response as to why you have to believe something when a valid reason cannot be given. It’s based on the reasoning that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from falling into error in faith or morals. But that claim can be shown to be in error.

In can only be shown in error by error.

The point you missed, evidently not familiar with the errors in infallible teachings, is that of the Council of Trent which claimed that the Church always interprets scripture correctly. This was followed about 100 year later by the condemnation of Galileo for suggesting that the earth moved contrary to the Church’s literal interpretation of Psalm 104 (among others). I thought most people were aware of this blunder in infallible teachings.

You prove post 47

To save you having to find it on the web yourself:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the **judgment of this Holy Office **

vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and **that the Earth moves **and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;"

No link? I suspect that it came from an anti-catholic site.

Catholic Encyclopedia
no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true,

But the **infallible pronouncement **

of the Council of Trent (and later Vatican I) notwithstanding, the earth is known to move and revolve around the sun. So the Church’s “declaration and defining” of scripture and what is “false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures” was an infallible error in this case.

What is in error is your history. The Council of Trent had nothing to do with Copernicanism. Again you show ignorance of infallibility.

 

[MrS]

adrift;5945724:

JP Marat;5940220:

RESPONSE:

Infallibility is the response as to why you have to believe something when a valid reason cannot be given. It’s based on the reasoning that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from falling into error in faith or morals. But that claim can be shown to be in error.

The point you missed, evidently not familiar with the errors in infallible teachings, is that of the Council of Trent which claimed that the Church always interprets scripture correctly. This was followed about 100 year later by the condemnation of Galileo for suggesting that the earth moved contrary to the Church’s literal interpretation of Psalm 104 (among others). I thought most people were aware of this blunder in infallible teachings.

To save you having to find it on the web yourself:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the **judgment of this Holy Office **

vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and **that the Earth moves **and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;"

But the infallible pronouncement of the Council of Trent (and later Vatican I) notwithstanding, the earth is known to move and revolve around the sun. So the Church’s “declaration and defining” of scripture and what is “false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures” was an infallible error in this case.

Well JP, you again show a few things…

You do not understand infallibility.

You do not understand when infallibility applies.

You do not understand if the Church has a position on centrism

You do not understand the theory of either helio or geo centrism, and that fact that neither has been proven or dis-proven. They are still theories… and off topic.

Bottom line… ya gotta just be making stuff up here to enjoy a discussion/argument.

Thanks for the effort though

.

 

[JP_Marat]

You have not provided any proof that this is so.

RESPONSE:

That what is so exactly?

Are you asserting that woman **are inferior **or just that scripture treats them as inferior?

 

[JP_Marat]

I guess I must have missed the teaching that all juridical verdicts of the Inquisition were infallible

RESPONSE:

Ah, yes. Trying to play the “not infallible” card.

The judgement against Galileo could not in itself invoke infallibility since, (1) it was a judgment, not a dogmatic statement, and more importantly (2) it was merely restating the **already declared infallible statement **of the Council of Trent which had already decreed that the Church alone correctly interpretes scripture.

Of course, in Galileo’s case, it didn’t.

JPM

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5945792:

adrift;5945724:

Well JP, you again show a few things…

You do not understand infallibility.

You do not understand when infallibility applies.

You do not understand if the Church has a position on centrism

You do not understand the theory of either helio or geo centrism, and that fact that neither has been proven or dis-proven. They are still theories… and off topic.

Bottom line… ya gotta just be making stuff up here to enjoy a discussion/argument.

Thanks for the effort though

.

RESPONSE:

Then perhaps you can practice the second spiritual work of mercy and “instruct the ignorant” regarding (your brand) of inallibility. Or can we dismiss your assertion as merely a claim without evidence?

The issue in the Galileo ruling was not geocentrism. It was whether the Church always interpret scripture correctly. That is clearly proven by the condemnation itself.

"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and **formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. **

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

"…that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; "

Council of Trent, 4th Session

“It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to **interpret the said sacred Scripture **contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold;”

However, we now know that the **Church was in error in it’s interpreation **of Psalm 104, the Joshua miracle of the sun story, etc.

 

[GeorgeSword]

I don’t understand, JP Marrat. Your religion is down as Catholic, but you’ve spent this whole thread trying to disprove the Church

 

[JP_Marat]

I don’t understand, JP Marrat. Your religion is down as Catholic, but you’ve spent this whole thread trying to disprove the Church

RESPONSE:

No. Not trying, disproving Chruch errors. As St. Paul tells us, “Test everything. Hold fast (only) to that which is true.”

Are Catholics required to believe errors once they have been demonstrated? Do you believe that the earth doesn’t move and that the sun revolves around the earth because the Chuch interpreted scripture in that way?

 

[GeorgeSword]

No, that was not infallibly stated. If it was infallibly stated I would have to swallow my pride and do so, wouldn’t I?

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

No. Not trying, disproving Chruch errors. As St. Paul tells us, “Test everything. Hold fast (only) to that which is true.”

Are Catholics required to believe errors once they have been demonstrated? Do you believe that the earth doesn’t move and that the sun revolves around the earth because the Chuch interpreted scripture in that way?

Yes you can. You can “believe”, or hold the position of either… EITHER… the earth or the sun as the unmoving center.

BOTH are theories… neither has been proven OR disproven. That is a fact. Numbers of physicists line up on both sides. Their findings are simply theories.

Personally, I found it hard to believe that I (the world) is spinning at over 1,000 miles per hour… must always be a nice breeze at the equator if you are facing the right way.

But now, with the spin you put on things with no understanding,… well, I guess there is a spin out there afterall.

By the way, infallibility is often described as a “negative protection”. It comes from the Holy Spirit, not the pope, yet it protects the universal Truth from being tampered with into something we then must believe.

Yet it applies in specific criteria… to the Pope alone, or to the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. It applies to matters of faith and morals. It applies to only those declarations that are clearly made from the chair (excathreda) of Peter. It applies only to those declarations that must be believed by all peoples in all ages for all time.

We have enough attacks from misunderstanding that come from outside the Church without another purported Catholic throwing another log on the fire.

Use the CAF search engine and read some threads on infallibility.

.

 

[nuntym]

JP Marat,

While reading your posts, I noted that you have

1. rejected the authority of Sacred Tradition
2. rejected the authority of the Church’s Magisterium
3. rejected the authority of the Pope

Why are you still considering yourself (from your Religion indicator) as a Catholic?

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

That what is so exactly?

Are you asserting that woman **are inferior **or just that scripture treats them as inferior?

You are really incoherent. Is that because you can’t back this statement up

This is based on the longstanding Church teaching of the inferiority of women.

You are the one that is asserting that woman are inferior.

 

[adrift]

MrS;5946728:

JP Marat;5945792:

RESPONSE:

Then perhaps you can practice the second spiritual work of mercy and “instruct the ignorant” regarding (your brand) of inallibility. Or can we dismiss your assertion as merely a claim without evidence?.

I see your still having trouble with the quote features. MrsS is the one who posted this accurate assessment. My son says do you have a mouse in your pocket or do you just think you are royalty with the royal we? You ought to know about claims without evidence. Actually all you are doing is making a snide remark to try to cover up your lack of evidence.
So let me instruct the ignorant.

The condition of the infallibility

is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops of the Church are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful

Nothing you have presented has been even slightly claimed to be infallible. Pietro Redondi in his book Galileo wrote “this heresy was inquisitorial-that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal-both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology of the period and as reported by the most serious juridical scholars of the affair.” In case you don’t understand what he is saying, let me state it. It did not concern faith and morals therefore not infallible. There is no error in the Church because Jesus is not a liar.
Galileo was convicted not of heresy but of disobedience according to Warren Carroll.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

No. Not trying, disproving Chruch errors. As St. Paul tells us, “Test everything. Hold fast (only) to that which is true.”

Are Catholics required to believe errors once they have been demonstrated? Do you believe that the earth doesn’t move and that the sun revolves around the earth because the Chuch interpreted scripture in that way?

Would you provide a Church document that officially taught this?

 

[JP_Marat]

You are really incoherent. Is that because you can’t back this statement up

You are the one that is asserting that woman are inferior.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious? Perhaps you should read the Bible.

1 Cor 11:7-10:

“A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority (6) on her head, because of the angels.” (NAB)

Footnote 6 : "…the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination…"

 

[MrS]

JP Marat;5947917:

MrS;5946728:

I see your still having trouble with the quote features. MrsS is the one

who posted this accurate assessment.

Actually she did not. My wife is not a CAF member.

I should have opened this membership as Mr-S. Not just MrS.uch:

But, I enjoy the occasional reference to Mrs because - unlike **some **posters here - I don’t hold that women are inferior. And besides, after years of moderating youth apologetic classes, and being called Mr S… well, that must be who I am.

.

 

[adrift]

adrift;5950017:

JP Marat;5947917:

Actually she did not. My wife is not a CAF member.

I should have opened this membership as Mr-S. Not just MrS.uch:

But, I enjoy the occasional reference to Mrs because - unlike **some **

posters here - I don’t hold that women are inferior. And besides, after years of moderating youth apologetic classes, and being called Mr S… well, that must be who I am.

.
Sorry. I thought I had only one S. I am on an unfamiliar computer is my excuse.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Are you serious? Perhaps you should read the Bible.

1 Cor 11:7-10:

“A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God,but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority (6) on her head, because of the angels.” (NAB)

Footnote 6 : “…the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination…”

I don’t see any word in this Scripture that says women are inferior.

It is interesting that you quoted like you did. Here is the entire footnote.

6 [10] A sign of authority: “authority” (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for “veil”; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination. Because of the angels: a surprising additional reason, which the context does not clarify. Presumably the reference is to cosmic powers who might inflict harm on women or whose function is to watch over women or the cult.

 

[JP_Marat]

MrS;5950831:

adrift;5950017:

Sorry. I thought I had only one S. I am on an unfamiliar computer is my excuse.

RESPONSE:

I think you will find that the post you quoted wasn’t my post but belonged to the poster above.

 

[JP_Marat]

I don’t see any word in this Scripture that says women are inferior.

It is interesting that you quoted like you did. Here is the entire footnote.

RESPONSE:

Then you need to look up what "subordination " means, don’t you?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I q. 92 a. 1

“Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from **defect **in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q.70 a.3

“The reliability of a person’s evidence is weakened, sometimes indeed on account of some fault of his…; sometimes, without any fault on his part, and this owing either to a defect in the reason, as in the case of children, imbeciles and women, or to personal feeling…”