Can Catholic Theology Change?

[razredge]

That was never Catholic theology. Those were civil penalties imposed. Not Catholic theology.

That is extremely specious reasoning - it’s like saying Hitler didn’t kill millions of Jews because he didn’t do it himself, but merely requested a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem.

The Catholic church were the ones who requested the death penalty for heresy in the first place and while you may be able to escape legal culpability by getting someone else to do your dirty work, i’m afraid God will not be so easily deluded.

BTW – who was burned at the stake for believing that the earth goes around the sun?

As far as I know, no one but Galileo would have been had he not recanted.

However, people were burnt at the stake for believing multiple worlds exist.

Greetings Razedge,

This was not a De Fide doctrine nor solemnly promulgated. This example you give is irrevelant to the discussion at hand.

Irrelevant? Perhaps to you, but certainly not to the Pope and Church at the time. Or do you think Galileo would have gotten away with ignoring the Church’s condemnation saying it wasn’t a De Fide doctrine nor solemnly promulgated (which in actuality it was).

And I would like to know who was burned at the stake for believing that multiple worlds existed and for believing that the earth goes around the Sun. I will want sources that are credible and that I can see for myself. **

Certainly, go look up Giordano Bruno.

This is from wiki, you’re free to check up their sources if you want:

In particular Bruno held firm to his belief in the plurality of worlds,

although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict, recommending a sentence of death. Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, and told he would be handed over to secular authorities.

 

[surritter]

That is extremely specious reasoning - it’s like saying Hitler didn’t kill millions of Jews because he didn’t do it himself, but merely requested a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem.

The Catholic church were the ones who requested the death penalty for heresy in the first place and while you may be able to escape legal culpability by getting someone else to do your dirty work, i’m afraid God will not be so easily deluded.

As far as I know, no one but Galileo would have been had he not recanted.

However, people were burnt at the stake for believing multiple worlds exist.

Recall that the burden of proof is on you to provide legitimate sources for the claim that Catholic theology is what directly caused these supposed injustices.

So, to answer the original question, Catholic dogma and official teachings can never be changed.

 

[razredge]

Recall that the burden of proof is on you to provide legitimate sources for the claim that Catholic theology is what directly caused these supposed injustices.
.

Certainly, for instance, from the Papal Condemnation of Galileo in 1633:
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

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.

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; and that consequently you have i*ncurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. *
And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

 

[surritter]

Razredge,
Surely you know that this Galileo bit has been explained elsewhere here on the forums. But we can summarize it here. (In short, the Church doesn’t make any dogmatic statement about science, just faith and morals.)

First, I hope that you don’t side with Galileo in the matter given in your first quote! That declaration was correct even back then to say that the sun is not the center of the universe and is not stationary. Why raise that point, unless you are ready to defend the notion that the sun is the center of the universe? (Just teasing…)

That aside, common sense says that for something to be a heresy there has to be a doctrine/dogma on the topic. There has never been a doctrine about geocentrism because it is in the realm of science and not in the Catholic deposit of faith. True, the word “heretical” is used in that document, but that is not a formal statement of the official Church – simply that of a subcommittee that was tasked with passing personal judgment in that particular case. Formal statements that define Catholic teaching come from the pope or an ecumenical council, neither of which authored the document that you refer to.

The second quote you gave might also seem to cause trouble because the term “doctrine” is used. However, as I stated above, there has never been a Catholic doctrine about geocentrism/heliocentrism. Furthermore, the declaration that Galileo’s propositions were “heretical” was never published as a teaching of the Church, and it was never intended to be such. Once again, it was intended and taken as the advice of certain theological experts who formed that tribunal – of value in a legal case, but hardly a norm of faith for the Church as a whole.

I suggest two articles to help clarify the question for you:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
and
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Galileo_Galilei

I’ll finish with a quotation from that second source (“Original Catholic Encyclopedia”):

The sentence, passed upon him [Galileo] in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favor of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares “It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope—who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope— and not of the body which calls itself the Church.” And von Gebler (“Galileo Galilei”): “The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.”

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Razredge,

I would like to continue this discussion with you, but I am going to be gone for the next 12 days.

I shall continue the discussion when I get back. However Surritter is doing a superb job of discussing and so I shall leave you in capable hands.

God bless you guys.
Anathama Sit

 

[razredge]

Razredge,
Surely you know that this Galileo bit has been explained elsewhere here on the forums. But we can summarize it here. (In short, the Church doesn’t make any dogmatic statement about science, just faith and morals.)

First, I hope that you don’t side with Galileo in the matter given in your first quote! That declaration was correct even back then to say that the sun is not the center of the universe and is not stationary. Why raise that point, unless you are ready to defend the notion that the sun is

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Many examples! For instance, the dogmas about Mary for her Immaculate Conception and her Assumption: completely in harmony with Scripture, and the seeds of these dogmas are evident in Scripture. Over the centuries they were examined more closely and further insight about them was written.

Limbo was another one.

 

[surritter]

Limbo was another one.

Never formally taught, Giuseppe.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Never formally taught, Giuseppe.

I know it wasn’t dogma but it was theology or better yet a theological hypothesis. Are we only talking about the theology that deals with dogmas?

 

[surritter]

I know it wasn’t dogma but it was theology or better yet a theological hypothesis. Are we only talking about the theology that deals with dogmas?

Yes. If something is taught as a mere hypothesis, no one gets worked up when later it is modified or tossed out.

But if a formal dogma or doctrine regarding faith and morals were to be subsequently tossed out, then a problem exists.

 

[surritter]

It says ‘center of the world’ and in the understanding of Galileo and the Church back then this would be taken to mean center of the solar system

And in any case:

Using your interpretation of ‘world’ being universe, the statement ‘and is not the center of the universe’ is also heretical

Well, this is two issues. First, are we to use the terms as they were thought of then or as they are used now? This is a key ground rule for further discussion here.
Second, as previously explained, the term “heretical” is out of place in a scientific discussion. I’m not picking on you about this; I realize it is the term used in the declaration, a document that was not an infallible pronouncement. It’s akin to saying that the newspaper sitting on my desk is a great race car driver. The two terms don’t even make sense together.

No, that was a papal statement approved by the Pope himself, you are arbitrarily deciding what constitutes a formal statement defining Church teaching or not. Fact is the Church and Pope at the time would consider it a definitive and binding statement.

Wrong again. The Church is not empowered to teach with such sweeping powers about science. If you interpret the declaration in that way, then you obviously conclude that the book of Genesis was definitively teaching that the universe (or “world,” shall I say) was created in seven days.

These are Catholic sources who would obviously be biased to portraying the Church’s role in the affair in the most positive light possible.

I don’t think you are entitled to wave your hand and dismiss these articles I reference just because they are written by Catholic writers/apologists. Did you actually READ them? Feel free to discuss the ideas they promote.

Please read this paper by Fr George Coyne SJ, former director of the Vatican Observatory on the matter

Not quite sure if I should get too heavy into that link, since the author of the work appears to not want that work in the public forum. But the quote from Bellarmine on p. 7 is hardly worthwhile evidence, since he seems to be making a dogmatic declaration that any words spoken by a pope are infallible. This has never been an accepted principle of our faith, despite what that esteemed saint claimed. IOW, if a pope declares that water molecules are not just hydrogen and oxygen but also include carbon, we shouldn’t be bothered because that is not a part of the “deposit of faith.”

Also in that document (p. 22) the author writes that “He [Galileo] was forbidden to do so by official declarations of the Church. There lies the tragedy.”
Agreed. The Church forbidding someone to teach something is not a formal declaration about the “something” being taught. It is just that: Don’t teach it right now.
At any rate, I’m willing to discuss this article more (alongside the two I gave to you).

Formally heretical means ‘diametrically opposed to a doctrine of faith’ in Galileo’s case namely the ‘words of the Holy Fathers and the literal interpretation of the Scriptures which were to be understood as a statement of faith’

Well, we’ve come full circle. We agree that heresy is a denial of a doctrine of faith. Yet, once again, scientific observations are not “faith.” They are observations of the natural world.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Of course it can and indeed has over the centuries, people are no longer burned at the stake for believing multiple worlds exist for example - or for believing the earth goes around the Sun etc.

And, pray tell, what is theological about sun and the earth? These are part of God’s creation beyond human comprehension.

What theology was based on the sun revolving around the earth? Any dogmas, doctrines, disciplines, moral teachings?

False teachings about the positions of bodies in the universe have about as much to do with theology as not knowing what causes earthquakes or the causes of lightning. [Although, even in the Middle Ages people knew that the cause of earthquakes and lightning was of course God]. There may have been superstitions about why God did these things. But did the Church ever have anything theological about them?

…nope Nope.

 

[razredge]

What theology was based on the sun revolving around the earth? Any dogmas, doctrines, disciplines, moral teachings?

False teachings about the positions of bodies in the universe have about as much to do with theology as not knowing what causes earthquakes or the causes of lightning. [Although, even in the Middle Ages people knew that the cause of earthquakes and lightning was of course God]. There may have been superstitions about why God did these things. But did the Church ever have anything theological about them?
.

So the Church is infallible only on matters of morals and faith?
I’m happy with that if you are.

 

[surritter]

So the Church is infallible only on matters of morals and faith?
I’m happy with that if you are.

But of course, you’ll challenge what exactly constitutes a matter of faith…right?

 

[razredge]

Wrong again. The Church is not empowered to teach with such sweeping powers about science.

I completely agree with that - my objection is to those who think that infallibility gives authority for the Church to overturn scientific findings (and if you’ve been following other discussions on CAF that’s precisely what they claim).

I don’t think you are entitled to wave your hand and dismiss these articles I reference just because they are written by Catholic writers/apologists. Did you actually READ them? Feel free to discuss the ideas they promote.

Yes, i’ve read them - they refer to it as the ‘Galileo myth’ which Fr Coyne (and most historians) object to as being historical revisionism.

This has never been an accepted principle of our faith, despite what that esteemed saint claimed. IOW, if a pope declares that water molecules are not just hydrogen and oxygen but also include carbon, we shouldn’t be bothered because that is not a part of the “deposit of faith.”

Good, you are one of reasonable ones then

Though actually Pope Alexander VII later did infallibly try and condemn as heresy “all books which affirm the motion of the earth”.

But as you agree with me that the Pope & Church can never infallibly pronounce on scientific matters then it is a moot point

Well, we’ve come full circle. We agree that heresy is a denial of a doctrine of faith. Yet, once again, scientific observations are not “faith.” They are observations of the natural world.

Again completely agree - I really only object to infallibility when people try and use statements (which they claim to be infallible) to promote beliefs that conflict with scientific findings.

 

[razredge]

But of course, you’ll challenge what exactly constitutes a matter of faith…right?

Anything that science or history cannot answer is a matter of faith

 

[Semper_Zelare]

So the Church is infallible only on matters of morals and faith?
I’m happy with that if you are.

No… you and I are not happy about this. You and I, and every Catholic does not apply their feelings to the fact of the authority of the Pope, the Vatican, and the Church to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. We submit to the authority, because it cannot err. We do not submit to it, because we are happy with it, afraid of it, or other dictates of the heart.

1. To address all your sciencey arguments on here. It’s a moot point. The thread is about theology. You and I both agreed that science is not theology. Go make a different thread if you want to talk about the Church and science.
2. Since this thread is about theology, I believe that it is unchangeable in the Church. Do you believe the same?
3. *.
   I hate taking science classes. I don’t find it interesting at all. Is there a science that tells us man is designed to worship God? Giving our lives to God is more important than having scientific knowledge about the world. Did all those poor, illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages lack anything necessary to go to Heaven, because they didn’t know anything about science (or reading anything for that matter)?

No. They lacked nothing to go to Heaven. They got it all from the Church, did they not?

So, science is a luxury and not a necessity. Science is valuable only when it can help people serve God and the Church. Just like music is only valuable when it turns peoples minds to God and serving Him through the Church (any time music, science, or anything doesn’t do that, it is meaningless because it is not helping Christ).

John 15:5 Apart from Christ you can do nothing.

That doesn’t mean you literally aren’t able to live, walk, work, sin, etc. It means that everything you do apart from Christ is meaningless and considered to be worth nothing in the eyes of God.*

 

[razredge]

. We submit to the authority, because it cannot err. We do not submit to it, because we are happy with it, afraid of it, or other dictates of the heart.

Why not submit to it because it makes sense? Or because it is what Jesus taught?

1. Since this thread is about theology, I believe that it is unchangeable in the Church. Do you believe the same?

No, because the Church has changed (or should I say ‘developed’) it’s theology over the ages. Of course some basic points do not change at all.

1. .

No, I serve Truth which is God and is also reason, since reason proceeds directly from God as Aquinas and others have said.

I hate taking science classes. I don’t find it interesting at all.

I see - off course if you don’t like science you won’t tend to agree with it or care much about it, unlike myself.

Is there a science that tells us man is designed to worship God?

No, of course not - that isn’t a scientific question

Giving our lives to God is more important than having scientific knowledge about the world.

Who said otherwise?

Did all those poor, illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages lack anything necessary to go to Heaven, because they didn’t know anything about science (or reading anything for that matter)?
No. They lacked nothing to go to Heaven. They got it all from the Church, did they not?

Of course, i’m not a Sola Scriptura believing Protestant

So, science is a luxury and not a necessity. Science is valuable only when it can help people serve God and the Church. Just like music is only valuable when it turns peoples minds to God and serving Him through the Church (any time music, science, or anything doesn’t do that, it is meaningless because it is not helping Christ).

Science is valuable because it teaches us about the world created by God.

And music is valuable because it is a form of expression and has a beauty that humans have a natural affinity too/

 

[Semper_Zelare]

razredge:

And music is valuable because it is a form of expression and has a beauty that humans have a natural affinity too/

That is disgusting. Human expression is naturally sinful and meaningless if it is not for the glory of God. So, if music is not glorifying to God, but is merely humans expressing themselves, then it will rot and decay and die like the things of the world. However, that which the Church binds and looses is also bound and loosed in Heaven. I’ll be able to listen to Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus in Heaven, but I won’t be able to listen to 1000s of songs which have obscenities in them, and neither will anyone. If a song has an obscenity in it, it is sin and cannot be in Heaven.

1. I don’t like littering my posts with 15 quotes of people. But, you agreed with me that medieval peasants lacked nothing to get to Heaven. And that science was not more important than giving our lives to God. So, my question is, can you prove that science can lead people to God?
   Music can. And in the Middle Ages there was music, almost all of it could be played in a Church. Why wouldn’t it be? After all the Church was the center of people’s lives, it was the dominant if not the sole inspiration for all art, music, science and otherwise.

And it should be that way again. Uniculturalism. A culture that comes from one place, where every other ideology that does not come from Christ is defeated utterly and destroyed.

-You and I can agree with science depending on your answer to this question: Do you believe science can be truthful even if the findings come from people who are atheists/ hindus/ bhuddists/ moslems, and not Christians or Jews?

-Proverbs 1:7 The beginning of knowledge comes from fear of the Lord. How can the scientific findings of atheists/ hindus/ bhuddists/ moslems be considered knowledge if they do not fear the Lord?

razredge:

Why not submit to it because it makes sense? Or because it is what Jesus taught?

The teachings of Jesus Christ don’t make sense to humans. They are anti-thetical to humanity. Counter cultural.
-Paraphrasing wikipedia on the Law (mitzvot): There are 3 parts of the law, one that makes sense to humans and is logical (don’t murder or steal, etc.), another based off Jewish beliefs (the Sabbath, because God rested on the 7th day), and the last part of the law “seems to defy all logic and reason”.

That is why you cannot submit to it because it makes sense. Some of the law that Jesus affirmed falls under that category.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razredge

No, because the Church has changed (or should I say ‘developed’) it’s theology over the ages. Of course some basic points do not change at all.

Not sure I understand you. If by “developed” you mean that it is been fleshed out, there certainly has been some fleshing out of the fine points of theology over the centuries. But If you mean by “developed” that the Church has contradicted its own teaching over the centuries, I think you are on the wrong track. The Church cannot teach moral or doctrinal “truth” in one era then call it “error” in another era.

This doesn’t mean that theologians and popes haven’t contradicted each other. What it means is that the formal teachings of the Church, once dogmatized, cannot be undogmatized.

Only when a pope speaks ex cathedra, and this is on the rarest of occasions, are his views said to be infallible. If you can point to an instance where two popes spoke *ex cathedra *and contradicted each other, that would be grounds for arguing that Catholic theology is not at all consistent.

Usury would not be a good way for you to go as an example. It was condemned in the Middle Ages and is still condemned by the present Pope. The definition of usury may have been modified over the centuries, but the fact of charging unreasonable interest rates on loans has always been regarded as sinful and comes under the sin of greed.

By the way, as a Catholic what would be your reason for arguing, if you do, that the teaching of the Church have changed over the centuries? Are you aware that the signal fact about Catholicism, as opposed to all the other Christian sects, is that it has held itself loyal to the earliest teachings of the Church, and that it is only the Protestants who have changed their theology by the creation of thousands of contradictory sects?