V
Vince1022
Guest
No, these two Marian dogmas were not against Protestant heresies. As the post noted, they were affirmations of what Catholics believed.
- Status
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Sure; we’re on the same page there.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think that your summary is off, and that others on this thread have summarized events better. Do you have a source for these ideas? Especially for the idea that he was persecuted for science denied by the church.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Galileo was persecuted by the Church despite the truth of his scientific teachings.
Right? If not, please share some references.
The New York Times, for what it’s worth, offered this news item: nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
V
Vince1022
Guest
What, exactly, do you find problematic with what I posted? Thanks.
A
Aramis
Guest
Because the cause of his house arrest was explicit: disobedience of the bishop. As a minor cleric, he was under solemn promises of obedience, and he disobeyed openly.
He was, while devout, a man who disgraced the clerical state. Children out of wedlock, stating the sun as the center of the universe, denial of the Church’s authority in public… he was rightly punished. The trigger point, however, was not the offense deserving it, merely the most obvious sign of a deeper illness of his lifestyle.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
That certainly is the difference between East and West on Original Sin. “Ancestral Sin” is no sin at all in the East, but the interited consequences i.e. death and a weakened moral will etc.
At her Conception and throughout her life, the Mother of God was sanctified by the Spirit (from the Eastern POV she had no sin on her soul ever). That sanctification, rather than the idea of a prevention of her contracting inherited guilt, is what is key in Eastern thought. The Roman Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception is actually similar - while Mary was preserved free from the “stain of original sin,” she still inherited the consequences of that sin.
HOWEVER, the Grace of the Holy Spirit mitigated those consequences. The ONLY difference between East and West here is on the view of the “stain of Original Sin.”
For the East, the stain of Ancestral Sin is all about the consequences, especially death.
Alex
C
Cecilianus
Guest
The same is true in the West, though - the term “original sin” means the inherited proclivity to sin and weakness, not actual sin or “inherited guilt” itself.
I can’t speak to that necessarily being the view of St. Augustine, but that was what I was taught coming into the Catholic Church as a Roman. If I had a copy of the Baltimore Catechism with me, I’m sure I could even find what I’m saying there.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between East and West is a difference in phrasing as to what exactly the consequences are. In the West, it’s concupiscence and a proclivity to sin; in the East it’s death. In the West, concupiscence and proclivity to sin are the effects of spiritual death (separation of the soul from divine life), whereas the East hasn’t really thought out a distinction between physical death and spiritual death, a distinction or relationship which would REALLY clear things up a lot.
D
dcointin
Guest
I frequently hear the objection from Eastern Orthodox that the Immaculate Conception makes the nature of Mary different than the rest of humanity because she would be without original sin. If this is the case, then the nature which Christ assumed and saved would have been different, and therefore humanity would not be saved. This is a serious objection since it relates to salvation itself, but I believe it’s not valid. To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God. That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam was before the fall, “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin. The nature of Adam was not different than humanity’s, humanity’s nature is the same, only fallen. If Mary was conceived immaculately, i.e. without original sin, her nature would have been the same as that of Adam before the fall, and therefore all humanity. The nature which Christ assumed from Mary would therefore be the same as fallen humanity’s, which he sanctified and redeemed through his life, death, and resurrection. Another objection is that Mary’s obedience would have unremarkable if she were immaculately conceived. It was no small thing, however, that Mary chose to be perfectly obedient to God considering that she lived in a world where she was tempted by the demons, surrounded by fallen people, struggled to provide for herself and her family, etc., these are all powerful influences toward sin. If Adam fell into sin after only a single temptation and without all of these influences, how much more profound is it that Mary was obedient? I’ve asked other Eastern Orthodox how they believe that perfect sinlessness was possible for her if every other person to have lived had fallen so far short, and the only response I’ve received is that she must have loved God more than us. I agree, but the question is why? Is it possible to have perfect love for God if you are not free from sin and united to him by grace? I personally don’t see how it could be, and this is why I believe in the Immaculate Conception.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
That is also exactly how the Orthodox St Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov understood the Immaculate Conception.
You are in excellent company!
The Orthodox in the Kyiv Metropolia even had Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception, wore medals like the Miraculous Medal and invoked the Mother of God “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” They even took to the bloody vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.
And the Kyivan Orthodox Academy fully accepted the Immaculate Conception and exerted much effort to theologize about it and to liturgically celebrate it.
Cheers,
Alex
You are in excellent company!
The Orthodox in the Kyiv Metropolia even had Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception, wore medals like the Miraculous Medal and invoked the Mother of God “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” They even took to the bloody vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.
And the Kyivan Orthodox Academy fully accepted the Immaculate Conception and exerted much effort to theologize about it and to liturgically celebrate it.
Cheers,
Alex
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But at that time many protestant sects are coming up and have been challenging Catholic belief, one of which are Marian beliefs. While one may argue that Protestants are not within the Church, most Protestants came from the Catholic Church, either the individual members or the founders themselves.
Yes, they were affirmations of what Catholics believe, but isn’t this affirmation a way to reassure Catholics that what Protestants are telling them are lies?
D
dcointin
Guest
I think it’s appropriate for the church to clarify its dogma in response to attacks from within or without. This is particularly important in the modern era, which is increasingly secular and hostile to Christianity. Too often Protestants focus their polemics against Catholics rather than the atheism, relativism, pluralism, etc. that should be their focus in western society, and therefore the Catholic Church must respond with clear, reasoned answers.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Here is what you posted:
You probably intend something more subtle, but the whole affair was more complicated that the simple pictures of it that are common.
The prevailing idea of the church of that time being anti-science, in particular empirical science, is not right: Copernicus’s work was supported by the church; special provisions were made to keep Kepler at the Catholic University Graz. The Vatican had an observatory. The truth is that modern Western Science was, at this time, being launched by the Catholic church.
Why was Galileo tried? (And not persecuted, but tried in a court with more due process than existed anywhere else on earth at that time.) The fundamental problem was his going beyond science to insist that science to teach a new hermeneutic that excluded a literal interpretation of the scripture. On that point he was correct, but that point was not his to make, as he was apparently bound by obedience not to teach this position or teach as settled fact the science behind it. Please note that this was all going on against the backdrop of the reformation ideas of “private interpretation of the scripture”. So the Vatican was not about to be precipitous in jumping to new scriptural interpretation because of science that was unsettled.
And it was unsettled. A big problem with the Copernican system is that its predictions were poor. Far worse than the Ptolemaic system with its complex epicycles. There was little traction in the community of scholars for a new theory that gave worse agreement with observation than the old one. It was Brahe and Kepler who worked out the kinks in the Copernican system. Galileo was still teaching Copernicus, and rejecting Kepler, at the time of his trial. This was not his only false move. The astronomers at the Vatican had it out for Galileo because he ridiculed their theory of comets (which was wrong, just as Galileo’s was). He also, by his ridicule, made an enemy of a former friend, who had become the Pope. With his high profile he may have fallen, unfairly, under more scrutiny than others, and he had less friend to help and more enemies happy to see him fall. In fact the intrigue was thick enough that is some sense that the prohibition against further teaching that he was convicted of violating may have been forged by his personal and scientific enemies.
He may have been treated unjustly, but it’s unjust to say that he was persecuted. And the issues, while connected to science (about which Galileo was behind the curve and wrong) the central issues was about the teaching authority of the church. In the end truth cannot contradict truth; scientific truth and theological truth must be compatible. But, as a scientist, I have no patience for contemporary scientists who talk about religion as though their truths should lead us to new theological insights. And thus I am thus a bit leery of seeing Galileo as some sort of hero or innocent victim in this affair.
Cf catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html
V
Vince1022
Guest
Plenty of Popes similarly disgraced the clerical state with children out of wedlock, so that’s really not the issue.
I didn’t know Galileo stated the sun was the center of the universe, I thought he simply said the earth revolved around the sun, which of course is true, but was considered contradictory to Scripture by many in the Church at the time.
Denying the Church’s authority in public is not in and of itself wrong, the question in this case was the authority of Scripture regarding science. The Church authorities took this as an attack on the Church authority, which Galileo never claimed. He was right, of course, the Scripture is not the ultimate authority for scientific fact.
Illness of his lifestyle? What do you mean by that? And do you really think that’s why he was persecuted? He was persecuted for his writings.
A
Aramis
Guest
He was not Persecuted. He was tried and convicted of disbedience, which, for a cleric, is a grave sin. He taught via his book things which were both untrue and directly forbidden for him to teach. One of the standard punishments for openly disobedient clerics is to cloister them in a monastery. By that standard, house arrest is a milder form
It was, and still is, a grave sin for a cleric (major or minor) to disobey an order to not teach something. It is equally a grave sin for a cleric to challenge the legitimate authority of the church in any public forum. Galileo did both.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
And one must also keep in mind that prudence should always dictate when and if somebody even ought to write something. Even if he were “persecuted” for his writings rather than simply given a very mild penalty for disobedience, it still doesn’t mean that that would have necessarily been a bad thing. For a Catholic cleric to start claiming that Scripture contradicts science during the height of the Protestant Revolt when the Protestants were doing their best to paint the Church as “unbiblical” is as foolish as it is heretical.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I know. That is why I suspect its one of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church has to dogmatize Marian beliefs, because of Protestant attacks on it.I think it’s appropriate for the church to clarify its dogma in response to attacks from within or without. This is particularly important in the modern era, which is increasingly secular and hostile to Christianity. Too often Protestants focus their polemics against Catholics rather than the atheism, relativism, pluralism, etc. that should be their focus in western society, and therefore the Catholic Church must respond with clear, reasoned answers.
V
Vince1022
Guest
If the order is wrong, or unjust, it’s not a grave sin to disobey it. Regardless, Galileo was remarkably obedient to the Church, despite the injustices he suffered.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Proclaiming truth is never foolish nor heretical.
M
mardukm
Guest
What is wrong and unjust about placing a moratorium on teaching about a topic until the Church has studied the matter more completely?
Blessings
- Status