P
pnewton
Guest
No, it doesn’t. Being a matter of faith is being related to God and our salvation. I fail to see the nature of astronomical mechanics being related to theology.
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
Well then we are talking past eachother Charles if we can’t agree on what Papal Infallible Authority is and what it refers to regarding faith and how it is used and recognised.
It seems you are in the difficult position of argueing that Papal Authority means more than what the Pope and Catholic Church says it does.
Now either you do think that and are an ultra-ardent supporter of the papacy or you are using your own definition in order to make a point against the papacy. Of course it’s the latter in this case but it is ironic that you have to have an ultra super position on the papal authority in order to make a point against it.
It’s not a logical arguement that i can see.
It seems you are in the difficult position of argueing that Papal Authority means more than what the Pope and Catholic Church says it does.
Now either you do think that and are an ultra-ardent supporter of the papacy or you are using your own definition in order to make a point against the papacy. Of course it’s the latter in this case but it is ironic that you have to have an ultra super position on the papal authority in order to make a point against it.
It’s not a logical arguement that i can see.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
LOL Now that is funny!!! Are guys saying that the Pope cant infallibly interpret a Biblical passage’s meaning? Even if it does deal with science? The Bible is inspired and without error even when it deals with science and history. How can an interpretation of a biblical passage not be a matter of faith.
A
abucs
Guest
Charles,
there is a clear difference between saying that the Pope can’t infallibly interpret a bible passage and that every utterance from a Pope or Catholic group associated to the Pope regarding scriptures is infallible.
if you follow your logic, it would mean that every concept that is mentioned in the bible, that the Pope and affiliated groups can infallibly make a statement on.
Catholics don’t claim this. It doesn’t make sense. You are defining Papal infallibility incorrectly.
It is not a matter of what i say, or you, but what the Catholic Church claims about Infallible Papal Authority.
If you want to argue with the Catholic Church about infallible Papal Authority then you have to accept their concept of it.
If you want to take this seriously then you have to read up and understand what is meant by infallible Papal authority. If you don’t do this then you are left with your own interpretation and there is no common ground in which to have a discussion.
If you only have your own definition of this then you simply end up argueing with yourself.
Good luck with that.
there is a clear difference between saying that the Pope can’t infallibly interpret a bible passage and that every utterance from a Pope or Catholic group associated to the Pope regarding scriptures is infallible.
if you follow your logic, it would mean that every concept that is mentioned in the bible, that the Pope and affiliated groups can infallibly make a statement on.
Catholics don’t claim this. It doesn’t make sense. You are defining Papal infallibility incorrectly.
It is not a matter of what i say, or you, but what the Catholic Church claims about Infallible Papal Authority.
If you want to argue with the Catholic Church about infallible Papal Authority then you have to accept their concept of it.
If you want to take this seriously then you have to read up and understand what is meant by infallible Papal authority. If you don’t do this then you are left with your own interpretation and there is no common ground in which to have a discussion.
If you only have your own definition of this then you simply end up argueing with yourself.
Good luck with that.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Also, by definition anything in scripture is a matter of faith. Scripture and Tradition are the two sources of Divine Revelation. The Pope’s interpretation of the meaning of a passage, by defintion, can fall under Papal infallibility.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, but none have. I believe there are only about five verses which have been infallibly defined, none of which deals with science. The vast majority of papal teaching is not infallible.
T
tcraig
Guest
From this article (bolding mine):
“This is not, however, the attitude of Pope John Paul II. In 1979, he expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the celebrated case. A commission of scholars was convened, and they presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992. Contrary to reports in The New York Times and other conduits of misinformation about the Church, the Holy See was not on this occasion finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around the sun.** That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.**”
And from the same article:
“Galileo’s works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis.”
An Imprimatur is an assurance that there is nothing that contradicts Catholic faith or morals. So, if heliocentrism contradicted Scripture then neither of these popes would have allowed the Imprimatur to be given.
M
MrS
Guest
The whole matter is an endless debate.
Both points of view have not advanced beyond theory. Both are no more and no less than theories. Neither has been proved nor disproved.
Personally, I don’t think I am traveling at a constant 1,000 miles an hour (which I would have to be if the earth was doing the spinning).
And to those who simply wish to be part of the “majority” and think of geo as off the wall… well, we will all know at the end of time.
It won’t be long before some Sungenis-bashers will pop in here and try to derail the topic. In the meantime, I feel quite comfortable thinking that God chose to send His Son to the us, whether we are at the center or not.
Both points of view have not advanced beyond theory. Both are no more and no less than theories. Neither has been proved nor disproved.
Personally, I don’t think I am traveling at a constant 1,000 miles an hour (which I would have to be if the earth was doing the spinning).
And to those who simply wish to be part of the “majority” and think of geo as off the wall… well, we will all know at the end of time.
It won’t be long before some Sungenis-bashers will pop in here and try to derail the topic. In the meantime, I feel quite comfortable thinking that God chose to send His Son to the us, whether we are at the center or not.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Read what I posted earlier. It is clear that the three Popes I quoted in this thread all said that scripture teaches (they may not have mentioned a particular verse) that to believe contrary to geocentrism is a contrary to faith and God’s word.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
what are you saying?? are you saying the Pope cant interpret a pasage of scripture infallibly under certain circumstances depending on the topic?Charles,
there is a clear difference between saying that the Pope can’t infallibly interpret a bible passage and that every utterance from a Pope or Catholic group associated to the Pope regarding scriptures is infallible.
if you follow your logic, it would mean that every concept that is mentioned in the bible, that the Pope and affiliated groups can infallibly make a statement on.
Catholics don’t claim this. It doesn’t make sense. You are defining Papal infallibility incorrectly.
It is not a matter of what i say, or you, but what the Catholic Church claims about Infallible Papal Authority.
If you want to argue with the Catholic Church about infallible Papal Authority then you have to accept their concept of it.
If you want to take this seriously then you have to read up and understand what is meant by infallible Papal authority. If you don’t do this then you are left with your own interpretation and there is no common ground in which to have a discussion.
If you only have your own definition of this then you simply end up argueing with yourself.
Good luck with that.
S
Slayer
Guest
Are Imprimaturs infallible?
A
abucs
Guest
No i didn’t say that.
Read up on what Papal infallibility actually is.
Read up on what Papal infallibility actually is.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
I have a degree in systematic theology I think I have read quite a bit on Papal Infallibility. Pope Urban VIII didnt appeal to science. The Holy Father stated that helocentrism was contrary to scripture and the faith. The Bible, by definition is a matter of faith and it seems obvious to me that the Pope could declare a verse ((the meaning of the verse)infallible even if it deals with science.
That being said, I am not saying Pope Urban did that. I am asking you to respond to Bob Sungenis’s arguments that I posted in my original post. Please go back and re-read it and respond.
A
abucs
Guest
From your opening comment :
Sungenis continues(his words), " Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " guided by the sacred teaching authority" to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” It is an undeniable fact that all Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism.
This is not true. Look at my replying post.
I see your point. But my point would be that the church, bishops and Popes have also given their support for heliocentrism before, during and after the quotes you give.
Popes say many things. The last and current Popes have spoken out against the current war in Iraq, together with thousands of priests and bishops but that does not mean that Catholics in the ‘coalition’ armies are barred from service.
I would say the rights and wrongs of killing people is much more under the umbrella of faith and morals than which body goes around the other.
If the Pope sat on the throne, envoked Papal infallibility and made the Iraq war against Catholic morals, then Catholics would have to obey that.
If he said the same words and didn’t envoke infallibility, like the situation you present, then yes it should be taken seriously, but it does not form part of a Catholics faith.
Another example. John Paul 2 believed that Mary saved his life during the assassination attempt. you could argue that a Pope is making a statement and it concerns what we should believe in our faith. But it doesn’t IMHO and i believe also the Church’s teaching.
Regards.
Sungenis continues(his words), " Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " guided by the sacred teaching authority" to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” It is an undeniable fact that all Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism.
This is not true. Look at my replying post.
I see your point. But my point would be that the church, bishops and Popes have also given their support for heliocentrism before, during and after the quotes you give.
Popes say many things. The last and current Popes have spoken out against the current war in Iraq, together with thousands of priests and bishops but that does not mean that Catholics in the ‘coalition’ armies are barred from service.
I would say the rights and wrongs of killing people is much more under the umbrella of faith and morals than which body goes around the other.
If the Pope sat on the throne, envoked Papal infallibility and made the Iraq war against Catholic morals, then Catholics would have to obey that.
If he said the same words and didn’t envoke infallibility, like the situation you present, then yes it should be taken seriously, but it does not form part of a Catholics faith.
Another example. John Paul 2 believed that Mary saved his life during the assassination attempt. you could argue that a Pope is making a statement and it concerns what we should believe in our faith. But it doesn’t IMHO and i believe also the Church’s teaching.
Regards.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Well obviously people after Urban VIII doubted (and at the time of him and others) geocentrism, but 150 - 200 years prior to him I think you are going to be hard pressed to find any Catholic on record as saying that geocentrism was wrong. Certainly going back even further than that I doubt you could find anyone.(which is Sungenis’ argument as to why it might be infallible based on Vatican II) Also you havent really dealt with Sungenis’ statment that the Church’s official stance is still geocentrism. The statments from the Popes I quoted earlier have never been revoked.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Also your examples of John Pauil II, the Church on the Iraq war, are completely ridiculous. You cant compare quotes from a Pope that occur during a speech to the quotes I gave about geocentrism The quotes I gave were official quotes promulgated by The Popes. You are comparing apples and elephants!!!
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Geocentrism isn’t a doctrine of the church. It’s not a matter of faith and morals. However, in certain eras, it may have been injurious to the faithful to entertain the idea of heliocentrism because it could appear to them to contradict certain passages of the old testament. Without proof, it may have been prudent to forbid teaching this as fact. The church needed time to reflect on how to reconcile scientific observations with our interpretation of scripture.
We are aware that the bible isn’t a science text and that the inspired writers spoke from the world view of their day. When people who were present at Fatima say the sun spun in the sky and instantly dried people’s soaked garments, we can accept that this is what they experienced. How God caused this is beyond our knowledge. When we read in the bible that the sun stood still, we can accept that this was the experience of those who were there and can leave the how of it to God. He caused it to appear so to them without causing calamities in other parts of the world. This doesn’t deny the reality of, and the power and presence of God in, this occurrence.
Also, abucs said, “**But my point would be that the church, bishops and Popes have also given their support for heliocentrism before, during and after the quotes you give.”
**
This certainly calls into question the accuracy of the following quote: “Sungenis continues(his words), " Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " guided by the sacred teaching authority” to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” **It is an undeniable fact that all Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism."
** So abucs (and I) simply deny Sungenis’ ‘undeniable fact’! He is making a statement which is in error. The church as a whole never believed in geocentrism as a ‘doctrine’ although it was accepted by many just as the way things are.
We are aware that the bible isn’t a science text and that the inspired writers spoke from the world view of their day. When people who were present at Fatima say the sun spun in the sky and instantly dried people’s soaked garments, we can accept that this is what they experienced. How God caused this is beyond our knowledge. When we read in the bible that the sun stood still, we can accept that this was the experience of those who were there and can leave the how of it to God. He caused it to appear so to them without causing calamities in other parts of the world. This doesn’t deny the reality of, and the power and presence of God in, this occurrence.
Also, abucs said, “**But my point would be that the church, bishops and Popes have also given their support for heliocentrism before, during and after the quotes you give.”
**
This certainly calls into question the accuracy of the following quote: “Sungenis continues(his words), " Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " guided by the sacred teaching authority” to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” **It is an undeniable fact that all Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism."
** So abucs (and I) simply deny Sungenis’ ‘undeniable fact’! He is making a statement which is in error. The church as a whole never believed in geocentrism as a ‘doctrine’ although it was accepted by many just as the way things are.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Well (I am tempted to laugh at you but I wont) I dont understand how you can say the Church hasnt taught or believed in geocentrism. The Popes (I quoted earlier) state that geocentrism is what scripture teaches. Unless you can produce a statment from a Pope overturning the previous Papal statments then you have nothing. Also, can you produce any quotes from let’s say the 12th century that states (from Catholics) geocentrism is wrong? I doubt it!!!
A
abucs
Guest
I am comparing them though Charles.
It seems for you that Geocentrism and the quotes you give are binding and a ‘big thing’. That is your thinking. Fair enough. It’s not mine nor the church’s.
As Claire says, when Sungesis says things like ‘This certainly calls into question’ and ‘it is a fact that’ and ‘It is an undeniable fact’ and we completely disagree with what follows, we can’t have a discussion because we don’t even agree on Sungesis opening assumptions.
Things that you are assuming are not agreed to by us. What you think is binding is not agreed to be binding by us, what you think stands eternal until revoked, for us is a non issue.
You want us to look at your quoted statements and think it actually means something. I’m afraid it doesn’t and i have tried to give other examples of how we view the situation you present compared to other situations.
If you think the other presented situations are silly, well then you now have the thoughts on what we think of your presented situation is.
I’m sorry for the sake of the arguement that i don’t take it seriously.
There is only so much discussion i can have on something i don’t consider to be serious. I’ve now reached that limit.
Best wishes.
It seems for you that Geocentrism and the quotes you give are binding and a ‘big thing’. That is your thinking. Fair enough. It’s not mine nor the church’s.
As Claire says, when Sungesis says things like ‘This certainly calls into question’ and ‘it is a fact that’ and ‘It is an undeniable fact’ and we completely disagree with what follows, we can’t have a discussion because we don’t even agree on Sungesis opening assumptions.
Things that you are assuming are not agreed to by us. What you think is binding is not agreed to be binding by us, what you think stands eternal until revoked, for us is a non issue.
You want us to look at your quoted statements and think it actually means something. I’m afraid it doesn’t and i have tried to give other examples of how we view the situation you present compared to other situations.
If you think the other presented situations are silly, well then you now have the thoughts on what we think of your presented situation is.
I’m sorry for the sake of the arguement that i don’t take it seriously.
There is only so much discussion i can have on something i don’t consider to be serious. I’ve now reached that limit.
Best wishes.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
I mean c’mon your not making any sense. You are comparing quotes from Popes made in speeches. I have quoted for you specific and official statements from Popes that were promulgated and supported geocentrism. You cant possibly think they are even close to the same level of authority do you? The Popes all emphatically stated that geocentrism was what the scriptures taught. They didnt appeal to science. They appealed to the Word of God.
- Status