T
thistle
Guest
You are wrong.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Abu
Guest
Such speculation is most unfortunate.
With the Galileo case, at that time, the core error by the theologians “lay in faulty exegesis: in supposing that the Bible does in fact assert a particular physical proposition (geocentrism) which it does not really assert.” (Fr Brian Harrison , O.S., Living Tradition, May 1994, Bomb-Shelter Theology). There was no dogma, nor defined doctrine declared by a Pope or Ecumenical Council.
rtforum.org/lt/lt52.html
‘I would reply that whether or not the traditional belief in geocentrism ultimately turns out to be vindicated by science, 62 it cannot be shown that, in the period prior to Galileo, the second of Vatican II’s four requirements for an infallible teaching was fulfilled in regard to that belief: the requirement that the teaching be proposed precisely as a matter of faith or morals. The geocentric world-view was based fundamentally on natural reasoning or philosophy, and indeed, on what seemed to everyone, educated and unlettered alike, mere common sense. For that reason the earlier Fathers and theologians understandably read that world-view into certain biblical texts when they had occasion to comment on them. But the well-spring or root of that sense of certitude which churchmen enjoyed for sixteen centuries with respect to geocentrism was always the seeming requirements of natural reason, rather than the revealed Word of God as such. Certainly, there is no reason to doubt that the ancient human authors of Scripture, like all their contemporaries, personally adhered to, or took for granted, the geocentric world-view. However, as Leo XIII explained over a century ago in the encyclical Providentissimus, that in itself does not prove that geocentrism was formally taught by them when they described certain cosmic phenomena “according to the appearances.” ’ Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration, January-March 1998.
[rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html]](LT73-74 - DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY? A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION])
With the Galileo case, at that time, the core error by the theologians “lay in faulty exegesis: in supposing that the Bible does in fact assert a particular physical proposition (geocentrism) which it does not really assert.” (Fr Brian Harrison , O.S., Living Tradition, May 1994, Bomb-Shelter Theology). There was no dogma, nor defined doctrine declared by a Pope or Ecumenical Council.
rtforum.org/lt/lt52.html
‘I would reply that whether or not the traditional belief in geocentrism ultimately turns out to be vindicated by science, 62 it cannot be shown that, in the period prior to Galileo, the second of Vatican II’s four requirements for an infallible teaching was fulfilled in regard to that belief: the requirement that the teaching be proposed precisely as a matter of faith or morals. The geocentric world-view was based fundamentally on natural reasoning or philosophy, and indeed, on what seemed to everyone, educated and unlettered alike, mere common sense. For that reason the earlier Fathers and theologians understandably read that world-view into certain biblical texts when they had occasion to comment on them. But the well-spring or root of that sense of certitude which churchmen enjoyed for sixteen centuries with respect to geocentrism was always the seeming requirements of natural reason, rather than the revealed Word of God as such. Certainly, there is no reason to doubt that the ancient human authors of Scripture, like all their contemporaries, personally adhered to, or took for granted, the geocentric world-view. However, as Leo XIII explained over a century ago in the encyclical Providentissimus, that in itself does not prove that geocentrism was formally taught by them when they described certain cosmic phenomena “according to the appearances.” ’ Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration, January-March 1998.
[rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html]](LT73-74 - DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY? A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION])
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Thistle, even the Catholic Answers tract says that a Pope approved Holy Office decree condemned geocentrism. This actually happened twice, the second time addressed directly to Galileo. And the excerpts I’ve found from the decrees say that heliocentrism is “altogether opposed” to the Bible. (These are from an 19th century book from a priest)
T
thistle
Guest
It has NEVER been Church doctrine.Thistle, even the Catholic Answers tract says that a Pope approved Holy Office decree condemned geocentrism. This actually happened twice, the second time addressed directly to Galileo. And the excerpts I’ve found from the decrees say that heliocentrism is “altogether opposed” to the Bible. (These are from an 19th century book from a priest)
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So you are just going to ignore what I presented?
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
So then the current Church doctrine on contraception is null? It does not come from an ecumenical council or ex cathedra.All of the above are not official duly defined Catholic doctrines from a major ecumenical Church Council declaring that Geocentrism is Divine Revelation.
Please note that the word geocentrism is not mentioned in the 1633 and 1664 quotes above. However, no need to worry. Catholics are free to believe in Geocentrism. Please refer to post 14.
One absolutely has to study the context each and every time the popular word “doctrine” is used.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
That the Church teaches nothing about science seems to be a more recent development. How do you explain the tradition of condemning heliocentric theory for so long? It was condemned as being opposed to scripture and considered formal heresy. Either the Church used to teach that it could declare things on science to be part of faith or morals, and was wrong, or the Church changed its teaching on the matter. Or the infallible Church didn’t understand its own role…This is a scientific issue and nothing to do with faith and morals. There is not and never has been any doctrine on this matter.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
It certainly seems that way.So you are just going to ignore what I presented?
*Note: I’m not opposing the Church. I just think that these are issues worthy of actually looking into, and not being disregarded as ‘the Church never taught that’, when clearly you have shown contrary evidence. So I hope that better answers are given, because so far, they’ve been the same old stuff and have totally ignored the posted documents.
A
Abu
Guest
False. Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.PeaceInChrist #26
How do you explain the tradition of condemning heliocentric theory for so long? It was condemned as being opposed to scripture and considered formal heresy.
The facts are that there is profound ignorance about Galileo and his compeers, and the Catholic Church.
BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186]
Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, “went to Rome and examined the Case, a little more thoroughly than the average humanist, probably intending to use it in his ongoing controversy with the Anglican bishop, Samuel Wilberforce. In a letter written to Mivart in 1885 he concluded, rather disappointedly, I presume – ‘I looked into the matter when I was in Italy and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it.’ ”
[Arthur Koestler, *The Sleepwalkers, MacMillan, 1959, p 353; cited in The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate, 1984, p185-6].
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
, MacMillan, 1959, p 353; cited in The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate, 1984, p185-6].False. Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.
The facts are that there is profound ignorance about Galileo and his compeers, and the Catholic Church.
BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186]
Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, “went to Rome and examined the Case, a little more thoroughly than the average humanist, probably intending to use it in his ongoing controversy with the Anglican bishop, Samuel Wilberforce. In a letter written to Mivart in 1885 he concluded, rather disappointedly, I presume – ‘I looked into the matter when I was in Italy and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it.’ ”
[Arthur Koestler, *The Sleepwalkers
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
Could you respond to post 12? Thinkandmull posted some quotes from documents condemning it as heresy. He’s posted articles, even from Catholic sites. Could you directly respond to the content of those posts?
I have no pony in this. I don’t think think and mull does either. If it was condemned by two popes officially, why is that such a big deal?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Exactly. The Church can change its doctrine one matters that are not infallible. What’s the big deal if She once taught a doctrine to protect the Bible? The direct quotes from the two papal approved Holy Office decrees and the comments by St Cardinal Bellarmine are from several Catholic writers who have a 1800’s imprimatur’ed book by a priest.Could you respond to post 12? Thinkandmull posted some quotes from documents condemning it as heresy. He’s posted articles, even from Catholic sites. Could you directly respond to the content of those posts?
I have no pony in this. I don’t think think and mull does either. If it was condemned by two popes officially, why is that such a big deal?
A
Abu
Guest
See the direct response in posts #21 and 28 – Galileo was not condemned for actually teaching heresy.
In fact,
Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible following Catholic Luther’s revolt and errors over the Scriptures.
Second, he was publicly disrespectful and disobedient.
Third, he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible.
Fourth, he was wrong in his Physics.
“From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities — that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from *Catalyst *9/2004)].
In fact,
Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible following Catholic Luther’s revolt and errors over the Scriptures.
Second, he was publicly disrespectful and disobedient.
Third, he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible.
Fourth, he was wrong in his Physics.
“From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities — that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from *Catalyst *9/2004)].
E
Evan
Guest
It falls under the teaching of the universal magisterium.So then the current Church doctrine on contraception is null? It does not come from an ecumenical council or ex cathedra.
All teaching of the Church does not need to come from council or ex cathedra. We are bound the follow the teachings. After all, I don’t believe any council or ex cathedra statement has affirmed that Mary, the Mother of God, was fully human, but it has always been taught. It may be affirmed if, someday, it is doubted by some in the Church.
A
Abu
Guest
Here is the reality.PeaceInChrist #25
So then the current Church doctrine on contraception is null? It does not come from an ecumenical council or ex cathedra.
**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that **the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed **(of which there have been only two), but **also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, **which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings **(such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”
In fact, Casti Connubii of Pope Pius IX, 1930, infallibly condemned contraception (#56) as "any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
So, then, the statements by the two popes that condemned heliocentric theory in post 12 are using their charism of infallibility?Here is the reality.
**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings **(such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”
In fact, Casti Connubii of Pope Pius IX, 1930, infallibly condemned contraception (#56) as "any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
What about the difference between doctrine and dogma? Between infallible and authoritative? I’m almost positive that Humanae Vitae is authoritative but not infallible.
Also, I was making a point to granny. People are so willing to accept some things stated by a pope in a document, but totally willing to disregard the words of a pope in another. Please address the statements made by two popes against heliocentric theory in an official capacity. It fits your definition of the charism of infallibility.
A
Abu
Guest
Galileo got into trouble for presenting heliocentrism as more than just a hypothesis, as absolute truth. Nicolaus Copernicus had no problems at all, and even dedicated his De Revolutionibus to the Holy Father.PeaceInChrist #34
So, then, the statements by the two popes that condemned heliocentric theory in post 12 are using their charism of infallibility?
The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church – Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.
Here are the facts – the three levels of teaching are:What about the difference between doctrine and dogma? Between infallible and authoritative?
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) **requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.
Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp, or the Vatican Library).
When you understand infallibility you will know that the doctrine in *Humanae Vitae *is infallible. But feeling that you know more than Dr David Gregson of EWTN (post #33), shows an attitude that obstructs your understanding of reality.I’m almost positive that Humanae Vitae is authoritative but not infallible.
You can find the definitive understanding of the infallibility of the doctrine in *Humanae Vitae *at rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html as No. 43 Roman Theological Forum *The Ex Cathedra Status Of The Encyclical Humanae Vitae *by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
You can find the evidence that Pius XI’s *Casti Connubii *(1930) defining the teaching against contraception as infallible also, in *Religious Liberty And Contraception *by Fr Harrison (John XXIII Co-op, 1988). Fr Harrison reveals that Fr Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. (a Vatican II peritus) definitively showed the doctrine in *Humanae Vitae *to be infallible and was given a message drafted in fine calligraphy by John Paul II with his own handwritten signature.
Unless and until one is prepared to learn, with real effort, what Christ’s Church is actually teaching and the depth of that teaching, one will forever meander in the morass of error and doubt and indecision. Catholics and our separated brethren don’t need that. Dissent is rampant and must be refuted.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Abu, reread my previous posts. The Holy Office, under the authority of two Popes, condemned heliocentrism. As with Casti Connubii, a mere encyclical, that were not infallible… Finally, how can you say Galileo “was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible”? You must believe in geocentrism then
T
thinkandmull
Guest
For Abu
It is “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium." Holy Office, 1616
This decree was approved by the Pope. St Bellarmine even bore witness to his when he sent two letters to Galileo about this condemnation and said “the declaration made by the Holy Father” and “in the name of His Holiness, the Pope”). So this was Papal authority.
The Holy office condemned Galileo’s theory again on June 22 in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII, said that it is “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
Benedict XIV kept Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler on the Index in 1741 and 1758 and said that any publication of Galileo’s book would have to be hypothetical and also contain the condemnations of Galileo’s heliocentrism.
It is “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium." Holy Office, 1616
This decree was approved by the Pope. St Bellarmine even bore witness to his when he sent two letters to Galileo about this condemnation and said “the declaration made by the Holy Father” and “in the name of His Holiness, the Pope”). So this was Papal authority.
The Holy office condemned Galileo’s theory again on June 22 in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII, said that it is “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
Benedict XIV kept Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler on the Index in 1741 and 1758 and said that any publication of Galileo’s book would have to be hypothetical and also contain the condemnations of Galileo’s heliocentrism.
A
Abu
Guest
You have to learn the difference between Popes and theologians. The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church – Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.thinkandmull #36
Abu, reread my previous posts. The Holy Office, under the authority of two Popes, condemned heliocentrism.
Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.
False. As you know so little about Catholic teaching you need to get the facts.As with Casti Connubii, a mere encyclical, that were not infallible…
You can find the evidence that Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930) defining the teaching against contraception as infallible, in
Humanae Vitae And Infallibity
Book Review: Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II,
by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. Published in Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, l986.
Excerpts:
“It will be clear by now that, if Fr. Lio’s criteria for infallible papal pronouncements are valid, contraception had already been infallibly condemned in this earlier encyclical of 1930, Casti Connubii.
“The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which **this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930) - could best be reaffirmed.
“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when *Gaudium et Spes *was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of Casti Connubii in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s “indecision.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.
Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.
So the Pope’s ‘*ex cathedra’ *definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. **Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt. [Emphases mine].
T
thinkandmull
Guest
It is “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium." Holy Office, 1616
This decree was approved by the Pope. St Bellarmine even bore witness to his when he sent two letters to Galileo about this condemnation and said “the declaration made by the Holy Father” and “in the name of His Holiness, the Pope”). So this was Papal authority.
The Holy office condemned Galileo’s theory again on June 22 in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII, said that it is “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
Benedict XIV kept Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler on the Index in 1741 and 1758 and said that any publication of Galileo’s book would have to be hypothetical and also contain the condemnations of Galileo’s heliocentrism.
So is geocentrism infallible?
The question is, how does a Pope make clear that he is making a decision for all time. Pius XI just stated what he thought on contraception. Pius XII gave encyclicals as an example of fallible authority in Humani Generis.
This decree was approved by the Pope. St Bellarmine even bore witness to his when he sent two letters to Galileo about this condemnation and said “the declaration made by the Holy Father” and “in the name of His Holiness, the Pope”). So this was Papal authority.
The Holy office condemned Galileo’s theory again on June 22 in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII, said that it is “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
Benedict XIV kept Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler on the Index in 1741 and 1758 and said that any publication of Galileo’s book would have to be hypothetical and also contain the condemnations of Galileo’s heliocentrism.
So is geocentrism infallible?
The question is, how does a Pope make clear that he is making a decision for all time. Pius XI just stated what he thought on contraception. Pius XII gave encyclicals as an example of fallible authority in Humani Generis.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.