N
- Status
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuntym
Any or all of these. The pope was speaking of the entire group of theses.
And it doesn’t matter how he describes them. The infallible part is:
“…we **decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them **as **condemned, reprobated, and rejected **…”
I don’t recall God ever requiring anyone to burned at the stake for not believing something. Perhaps you can cite the passage for us.
You might also ask your priest if the Church still allows you to burn heretics because it’s God’s will.
Originally Posted by nuntym
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
RESPONSE:
Any or all of these. The pope was speaking of the entire group of theses.
And it doesn’t matter how he describes them. The infallible part is:
“…we **decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them **as **condemned, reprobated, and rejected **…”
You are excomminicated for supporting any one or more. Infallibly so!
RESPONSE:
I don’t recall God ever requiring anyone to burned at the stake for not believing something. Perhaps you can cite the passage for us.
You might also ask your priest if the Church still allows you to burn heretics because it’s God’s will.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Originally Posted by nuntym
RESPONSE:
There is no requirement for me or the Pope to do so. All he had to do was condemn the whole series of theses infallibly. That’s his definition. That he did. There is no requirement that he condemn them individually nor give any reason why he’s doing so.
He’s “infallible” remember?
Most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, mind you <<
RESPONSE:
There is no requirement for me or the Pope to do so. All he had to do was condemn the whole series of theses infallibly. That’s his definition. That he did. There is no requirement that he condemn them individually nor give any reason why he’s doing so.
He’s “infallible” remember?
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Originally Posted by nuntym
Excuse me, are you telling all of us here that an incomplete, unclear definition, even by your admission by not answering my previous questions, can be an infallible doctrine? Whose belief and unbelief can mean a chance for eternal salvation or instant excommunication?
We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…
Is that what you are telling us?
RESPONSE:
No. The pope is. Read the words.
Excuse me, are you telling all of us here that an incomplete, unclear definition, even by your admission by not answering my previous questions, can be an infallible doctrine? Whose belief and unbelief can mean a chance for eternal salvation or instant excommunication?
We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…
Is that what you are telling us?
RESPONSE:
No. The pope is. Read the words.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the **exercise of his office **as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
RESPONSE:
Let’s check the underlining.
"…and by the **authority of almighty **God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, **we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each **of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…
Exsurge meets all the criteria.
RESPONSE:
Yes. Pope Leo X most certainly did that. Read again the highlighted portions of Exsurge.(above)
RESPONSE:
Let’s check the underlining.
"…and by the **authority of almighty **God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, **we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each **of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…
Exsurge meets all the criteria.
“[the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that **each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that **he or she knows for certain **that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).
RESPONSE:
Yes. Pope Leo X most certainly did that. Read again the highlighted portions of Exsurge.(above)
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
The universal ordianary magisterium. The passages that the earth was set on its foundation by God never to be moved and the halting of the sun in its course around the earth were taken literally by the Church and so taught. To question them was heresy. That’s the point.
N
nuntym
Guest
N
nuntym
Guest
Oh cool. So that means, if it is defined by the universal ordinary Magisterium, then all the bishops in communion with the Pope are one in this teaching. Which means there must be other documents that show all the other bishops agree with this.RESPONSE:
The universal ordianary magisterium. The passages that the earth was set on its foundation by God never to be moved and the halting of the sun in its course around the earth were taken literally by the Church and so taught. To question them was heresy. That’s the point.
Can you please provide us with such documentation?
Although, I have to point to you:
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
in the Papal Condemnation of Galileo after his second trial, three of the 10 cardinals who acted as judges did not sign. So by that itself at least three of the bishops of the time did not agree with the teaching.
So now, I am eager to see how you will present a proof of this teaching by the universal ordinary Magisterium, as by the disagreement of those three bishops that has already become void.
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE
You are continuing to try to sidestep the basic fact. The Church was in error in its interpretation of scripture.
No. There need be “no other documents.” The error is in Trent and Vatican I’s decrees on the interpretation of scripture. (I’m assuming you recognize that the earth does move and the earth revolves aroound the sun).
However, in this case there is further documentation regarding the Church’s erroneous teaching that the earth could not be moved.
"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. "
The fact that not all the bishops signed the condemnation of the Holy Office is irrelevant to the fact that the Church was in error in its interpretation of scripture. That’s the issue. (Not all the bishops signed the decree of the Council of Nicea nor the Decree of Vatican I either. But, again, that’s not what is the issue at hand).
The issue continues to be that the Churched interpreted scripture incorrectly. Trying to get aroound that by raising unrelated objections doesn’t change the fact of the Church’s error and hence showing that Trent and Vatican I were in error in their “infallible” decrees that the Church always interpretes scripture correctly.
That is the only issue. Trying to avoid it doesn’t make it go away.
N
nuntym
Guest
Nope JP Marat, there is no sidestepping. The Church has never made an infallible interpretation of Scripture in this case. The criteria of infallibility of doctrine is the same as the criteria of infallibility in interpreting Scripture, because, well, what a particular part of Scripture means IS a doctrine.RESPONSE
You are continuing to try to sidestep the basic fact. The Church was in error in its interpretation of scripture.
No. There need be “no other documents.” The error is in Trent and Vatican I’s decrees on the interpretation of scripture. (I’m assuming you recognize that the earth does move and the earth revolves aroound the sun).
However, in this case there is further documentation regarding the Church’s erroneous teaching that the earth could not be moved.
"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. "
The fact that not all the bishops signed the condemnation of the Holy Office is irrelevant to the fact that the Church was in error in its interpretation of scripture. That’s the issue. (Not all the bishops signed the decree of the Council of Nicea nor the Decree of Vatican I either. But, again, that’s not what is the issue at hand).
The issue continues to be that the Churched interpreted scripture incorrectly. Trying to get aroound that by raising unrelated objections doesn’t change the fact of the Church’s error and hence showing that Trent and Vatican I were in error in their “infallible” decrees that the Church always interpretes scripture correctly.
That is the only issue. Trying to avoid it doesn’t make it go away.
A
adrift
Guest
Okey dokey then that pig is a priest. Nonsense. The Church agrees with me that it must be a man or else the sacrament is invalid.
N
nuntym
Guest
There never has been an “official Catholic” interpretation of ALL the Bible, JP Marat, only a few key parts. For example in at least 7 parts of the Bible, infallible interpretations were made in the Council of Trent:
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
Source
If there HAS been a total complete Catholic interpretation of the Bible, then you’d have to answer these questions:
b) %between%
c) by Pope Leo XIIIPROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS?
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
Source
If there HAS been a total complete Catholic interpretation of the Bible, then you’d have to answer these questions:
- Why is there no official “Compendium of Bible Interpretations” that has been issued from the Vatican?
- Why are there documents from the Bible on how to interpret the Bible from a Catholic point of view, including
b) %between%
c) by Pope Leo XIIIPROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS?
N
nuntym
Guest
There never has been an “official Catholic” interpretation of ALL the Bible, JP Marat, only a few key parts. For example in at least 7 parts of the Bible, infallible interpretations were made in the Council of Trent:
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
Source
If there HAS been a total complete Catholic interpretation of the Bible, then you’d have to answer these questions:
b) Dei Verbum 12
c) by Pope Leo XIIIPROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS?
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
Source
If there HAS been a total complete Catholic interpretation of the Bible, then you’d have to answer these questions:
- Why is there no official “Compendium of Bible Interpretations” that has been issued from the Vatican?
- Why are there documents from the Catholic Church on how to interpret the Bible from a Catholic point of view, including
b) Dei Verbum 12
c) by Pope Leo XIIIPROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS?
A
adrift
Guest
You ignore"for holding as true the false doctrine" Dr. Carrol carefully researched his book in which he says Galileo was told not to teach Copernicanism as true. He did and that is why the condemnation due to disobedience. So when you write Dr. Carrol be sure to tell him that he is wrong and you are right.
A
adrift
Guest
Your are twisting what was said. It doesn’t say that heretics are to be burned only that it isn’t against the Holy Spirit that they are burned. As I have written before, this is saying that capitol punishment is permitted which has not changed.RESPONSE:
Yes, it remains the **Church’s “infallible” teaching **that it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake. Exsurge domine has not been reversed. So, many Catholics are excommunicated for not believing so.
It is clear from the repeated papal statements of ED, that the Pope indended to teach infallibly.
"…by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority,** we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely **each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…
That’s rather pathetic, don’t you think?
Of course, since the Church no longer controls the government, nobody has been burned for heresy in recent memory, so that fine Catholic tradition has more or less been ignored.
Incidentally, Aquinas thought that the burning of heretics was a good idea too.
N
nuntym
Guest
JP Marat, speaking of Providentissimus Deus, I want you to read this:
Paragraph 19: The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in. **For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”**55 according to the saying of St. Thomas. etc…
Source
Paragraph 19: The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in. **For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”**55 according to the saying of St. Thomas. etc…
Source
A
adrift
Guest
Any earlier one?
Did you throw this in to sound impressive. Or is it just that you are that ignorant of Catholic history. I am betting on both.Galileo was condemned for holding as true and not as a Copernican theory which at the time it was just a theory. I will accept Dr. Carrol’s well research opinion.
A
adrift
Guest
Not any document:nope:
N
nuntym
Guest
JP Marat, all sacraments must have 4 conditions met for them to be valid: 1) right matter, 2) right form, 3) right minister, 4) right recipient.
For Holy Orders, according to the the same article you quoted, “Every baptized male can validly receive ordination.”
A
adrift
Guest
Galileo’s case misses the mark of infallibility because there is no proof that the Pope made a statement against him that was MEANT to be infallible. Nor have you provided any proof that the Church ever taught infallibly that the scripture was interpreted this way OFFICIALLY. Augustine of Hippo did not believe it was.
- Status