Has the Church ever been wrong?

[cassini]

Actually, St. Bellarmine wrote words to that effect (the words above are not an exact quote, despite the quotation marks) in a private letter, not at the trial of Galileo. The private opinion even of a saint and Doctor is not the same as the teaching of the Church.

And Cassini continues to speak of the 1616 decree as a “papal decree” which is factually incorrect. It was a decree of the Congregation of the Index, approved by the Pope only in forma communi (see my comments on this here and here.) Granny is correct to state that a decree of a Roman Congregation approved in forma communi is incapable of establishing a universally binding theological dogma.

It was the Church itself that insisted the decree was papal, not I. Here the minutes of Galileo’s 1633 trial to prove it:

Trial minutes: “Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough; but mark what followed.

Trial minutes “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s 1616 testamur for Galileo to say he was not made abjure anything]:
‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured (The abjuration was a solemn profession of faith, accompanied with a renouncement of every opinion opposed to the Church’s teaching, exacted only from those attainted of some crime implying unsoundness of faith. Hence Galileo’s anxiety to return to Florence after the proceedings of 1616 with a testamur that he had not abjured, and therefore was not guilty of any breach contrary to the Catholic faith at that time 1616.), … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and **published by the Sacred Congregation **of the Index, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

Trial minutes: "… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that **the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, **and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.”

Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.

So much for the 1616 decree not being of faith and not being papal. The above is the judgement of the Church. Yours and those of granny are but your own apologist opinions. I will follow the Church’s position every time.

 

[DavidPalm]

Cassini,

I am snowed under with farm chores today and I try not to do apologetics on Sunday. So it may take me some time to get back to you. For now, though, I would urge you please not to plagiarize, even if it’s only when posting on an Internet forum. Unfortunately, others do this habitually and it is a serious mark against credibility.

The material you have copied above comes verbatim from Fr. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. It’s totally acceptable to cite a secondary source such as this or, as I did in the other Heliocentrism thread, find primary source material in a secondary source, look it up yourself, and then properly cite the primary source. But please tell us where you’re getting the material from. Thanks.

 

[cassini]

Cassini,

I am snowed under with farm chores today and I try not to do apologetics on Sunday. So it may take me some time to get back to you. For now, though, I would urge you please not to plagiarize, even if it’s only when posting on an Internet forum. Unfortunately, others do this habitually and it is a serious mark against credibility.

The material you have copied above comes verbatim from Fr. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. It’s totally acceptable to cite a secondary source such as this or, as I did in the other Heliocentrism thread, find primary source material in a secondary source, look it up yourself, and then properly cite the primary source. But please tell us where you’re getting the material from. Thanks.

Yes David, I normally cite source and have done several times. One does not plaguarise if the intention is to cite a source of another source. But be careful, my post is loaded. Remember the thread title: ‘Has the Church ever been wrong?’
Interesting that you are a farmer. What kind? A wonderful occupation, working all day in God’s creation and seeing him in the rotation of produce, year in and year out, free from city and corporate distractions.

 

[grannymh]

The letter nevertheless tells us what Bellarmine meant when he said, “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.” It is clear that geocentrism was viewed at the time as a matter of faith. Though today Catholics make a distinction between matters of science and matters of faith and morals that ground was not ceded to science until later. It is anachronistic to apply the science/faith distinction to Galileo’s time. It didn’t exist then.

It would be better to state the entire proposition as in "It is clear that geocentrism was viewed at the time as a matter of faith by individuals including high ranking individuals; however, this “view” does not automatically become a Catholic dogma.

Individual views of any subject can and do change. A duly defined dogma does not change.

It is also important to note that the difference between natural science explanations and Catholic dogmas has been in existence since day one. Notice what has been omitted from the Nicene Creed.

 

[cassini]

It would be better to state the entire proposition as in "It is clear that geocentrism was viewed at the time as a matter of faith by individuals including high ranking individuals; however, this “view” does not automatically become a Catholic dogma.

Individual views of any subject can and do change. A duly defined dogma does not change.

It is also important to note that the difference between natural science explanations and Catholic dogmas has been in existence since day one. Notice what has been omitted from the Nicene Creed.

It does when a pope declares it so as Pope Paul V did by way of the Index in 1616. And as I have shown above this position of an irreversable papal decree was declared by a second pope, Urban VIII in 1633. Now as I said to David, the question of this thread is: ** Has the Church ever been wrong?**

Here you correct the 1616 and 1633 Church for making a non-dogma formal heresy. If ever there was a case to say Yes, the Church was wrong, then you make it Granny, a situation where the Church couldn’t tell the difference between formal heresy and no heresy, and THAT is on a matter of faith…

 

[grannymh]

It does when a pope declares it so as Pope Paul V did by way of the Index in 1616.

By way of the Index in 1616. What an interesting speculation regarding the power of the Index. Would you kindly give the dogma which the Index declared.

And as I have shown above this position of an irreversable papal decree was declared by a second pope, Urban VIII in 1633. Now as I said to David, the question of this thread is: Has the Church ever been wrong?

Considering that the Index was an outreach project to protect the faith of Catholics, I am sure that some errors were made in adding writings. So in that sense, one could say that the Church was wrong. However, no duly proclaimed dogma could be issued by the Index because that was not in its job description.

Here you correct the 1616 and 1633 Church for making a non-dogma formal heresy. If ever there was a case to say Yes, the Church was wrong, then you make it Granny, a situation where the Church couldn’t tell the difference between formal heresy and no heresy, and THAT is on a matter of faith…

Coincidentally, your term “a non-dogma formal heresy” sounds a lot like the scientific lingo of the day as recorded in some of the info provided about the times of Galileo. Do remember that there was competition in the field of science and all the hot heads were trying to top each other by using some pretty powerful words like the four-letter-word heresy.

However, the lingo proper to the Catholic Church at that time reveals that there was no infallible theological dogma at the local event involving Galileo.

In other words, the Church could be wrong in its scientific lingo involving a specific item such as the material earth’s position in the physical universe. But the Catholic Church cannot be wrong when defining dogmas which require both proper lingo and proper authority.

Blessings,
granny

*1 Timothy 2: 1-4 *

 

[cassini]

By way of the Index in 1616. What an interesting speculation regarding the power of the Index. Would you kindly give the dogma which the Index declared.

Considering that the Index was an outreach project to protect the faith of Catholics, I am sure that some errors were made in adding writings. So in that sense, one could say that the Church was wrong. However, no duly proclaimed dogma could be issued by the Index because that was not in its job description.

Coincidentally, your term “a non-dogma formal heresy” sounds a lot like the scientific lingo of the day as recorded in some of the info provided about the times of Galileo. Do remember that there was competition in the field of science and all the hot heads were trying to top each other by using some pretty powerful words like the four-letter-word heresy.

However, the lingo proper to the Catholic Church at that time reveals that there was no infallible theological dogma at the local event involving Galileo.

In other words, the Church could be wrong in its scientific lingo involving a specific item such as the material earth’s position in the physical universe. But the Catholic Church cannot be wrong when defining dogmas which require both proper lingo and proper authority.

Blessings,
granny

*1 Timothy 2: 1-4 *

the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index;
‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him,

Granny, it is now obvious to me you really are caught in a web of incomprehensible rhetoric of your own making. Some of your posts now do not make any sense at all. I try to make my points as simple as possible, using words to describe your position, such as ‘non-dogma formal heresy’ that is, you say the Church defined something that was not a dogma to be formal heresy. In trying to rescue your position you make it look more and more like a bunch of men who knew nothing about anything, not dogma, not formal heresy, not science. You finally admit in your post 1000 that yes the Church was totally in chaos, let alone wrong, when it came to the Galileo case.

So here then is your position as a consequence:

1. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church may be, not only scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. Or, in other words, the Pope in and by a Bull addressed to the universal Church, may confirm and approve with Apostolic authority decisions that are false, unsound, and perilous to the faith.
2. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to oppose the free progress of science.
3. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
4. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions.

 

[grannymh]

You finally admit in your post 1000 that yes the Church was totally in chaos, let alone wrong, when it came to the Galileo case.

Totally in chaos. You must be kidding.

The Catholic Church has remained true to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It offers the Seven Sacraments as help on our way to eternity with the Blessed Trinity. The greatest truth about the Catholic Church is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

Chaos with Jesus Christ. Don’t think so. Of course there will always be sinners and those who attack the Church from without and within. There will be periods of confusion and you might call that chaos. However totally in chaos----don’t think totally is accurate.

Has the Church ever been wrong? One can always find wrong and maybe there will always be something wrong going on. There have been some serious wrongs throughout the centuries. Even then, wrong dogmas were never declared. Some think that the few bad popes were too busy with fun stuff to think about Faith and Morals.

One thing for sure. No matter what is going on, Jesus is present to love us, forgive us, and be totally with us as we struggle through life.

 

[MarianD]

I was always under the impression that the Church is infallible when it comes to its teachings on the faith and on doctrines. This means that the ENTIRE Magisterium—Pope and Bishops—can’t get something wrong. If one Bishop teaches something wrong, then infalliblity can’t be called to question. If a Pope teaches something wrong from his own opinion, then infallibility isn’t in play here.

If the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then it is infallible. If the Bishops, in union with the Pope, declare something, it is infallible. When either group speaks alone, they are fallible.

In the case of Galileo, it seems like the Pope issued a decree. Papal decrees aren’t infallible as they are not ex cathedra. And, infallibility is only involved in issues of the faith. The Church can be and has been fallible in terms of political issues, wars, and science.

Papal bulls/decrees are simply the Pope writing a letter. It carries no weight of dogma or infallibility. They are, however, authoritative. That means that one shouldn’t outright disobey it, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t argue against it. Arguing against a papal decree does NOT make one a non-Catholic, and the words contained within the Papal bull/decree are not infallible dogmas and are subject to change.

I should also add that Papal infallibility is only in effect if the Pope is defining a doctrine that concerns faith or morals. Pope Urban VIII was dealing with science (not faith), and he wasn’t defining anything. Papal bulls can be repealed (eg. Pope Benedict XIII’s repeal of the Papal bull which stated that smoking was punishable by excommunication). Besides, the doctrine of ex cathedra wasn’t even defined when Urban VIII was Pope, so that can’t be brought up here (it’s not like he used it anyway).

 

[edwest2]

I was always under the impression that the Church is infallible when it comes to its teachings on the faith and on doctrines. This means that the ENTIRE Magisterium—Pope and Bishops—can’t get something wrong. If one Bishop teaches something wrong, then infalliblity can’t be called to question. If a Pope teaches something wrong from his own opinion, then infallibility isn’t in play here.

If the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then it is infallible. If the Bishops, in union with the Pope, declare something, it is infallible. When either group speaks alone, they are fallible.

In the case of Galileo, it seems like the Pope issued a decree. Papal decrees aren’t infallible as they are not ex cathedra. And, infallibility is only involved in issues of the faith. The Church can be and has been fallible in terms of political issues, wars, and science.

Papal bulls/decrees are simply the Pope writing a letter. It carries no weight of dogma or infallibility. They are, however, authoritative. That means that one shouldn’t outright disobey it, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t argue against it. Arguing against a papal decree does NOT make one a non-Catholic, and the words contained within the Papal bull/decree are not infallible dogmas and are subject to change.

I should also add that Papal infallibility is only in effect if the Pope is defining a doctrine that concerns faith or morals. Pope Urban VIII was dealing with science (not faith), and he wasn’t defining anything. Papal bulls can be repealed (eg. Pope Benedict XIII’s repeal of the Papal bull which stated that smoking was punishable by excommunication). Besides, the doctrine of ex cathedra wasn’t even defined when Urban VIII was Pope, so that can’t be brought up here (it’s not like he used it anyway).

We’re on the interwebs, so why use terms like “seems like.”?

The Galileo Story:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Leela
It is clear that geocentrism was viewed at the time as a matter of faith. Though today Catholics make a distinction between matters of science and matters of faith and morals that ground was not ceded to science until later. It is anachronistic to apply the science/faith distinction to Galileo’s time

As clear as mud. Assumptions are not faith, and cassini can’t get that either – infallibility protects only faith and morals promulgated as the Supreme Pastor as a definitive teaching to the whole Church. Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices (William James).

It is good that the puerile attacks on the Magisterium of Christ’s Church should be exposed as Fr Brian Harrison points out at: rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which: (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office; (c) was endorsed by the papacy for only 141 years (1616-1757); (d) was never greeted with the emphatic and morally unanimous endorsement of the world’s Bishops, only a respectful acquiescence; and (e) never in any case affected the concrete lives and destinies of any more than a handful of professional scientists such as Galileo.”

Leela is still wallowing in the mire of confusion – not realising that the development of science was one of many attributes in the Catholic Church’s building of Western civilization.

Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible. 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 Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology. The system of Copernicus was never denounced.

Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. He explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005,p 15].

 

[fhansen]

Though today Catholics make a distinction between matters of science and matters of faith and morals that ground was not ceded to science until later. It is anachronistic to apply the science/faith distinction to Galileo’s time. It didn’t exist then.

It should’ve existed then. In like manner no one should ever do wrong, believers or unbelievers alike. But people do. The Galileo case was a matter of Church people overstepping their bounds. And, as a result, she learned of her God-given boundaries more precisely. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This involves what is called “salvation”-it’s not about relatively mundane considerations such as scientific fact, unless those facts have something to do with salvation in some manner or another.

 

[cassini]

It should’ve existed then. In like manner no one should ever do wrong, believers or unbelievers alike. But people do. The Galileo case was a matter of Church people overstepping their bounds. And, as a result, she learned of her God-given boundaries more precisely. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This involves what is called “salvation”-it’s not about relatively mundane considerations such as scientific fact, unless those facts have something to do with salvation in some manner or another.

The Galileo case, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, was not about science, but about the correct interpretation of Scripture. The correct interpretation of Scripture is a matter of FAITH. The correct interpretation of Scripture is called REVELATION. REVELATION is directly related to SALVATION. If the Church was wrong then it was wrong about the correct interpretation of Scripture, then it was wrong on a matter of FAITH, REVELATION. and SALVATION.

 

[fhansen]

The Galileo case, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, was not about science, but about the correct interpretation of Scripture. The correct interpretation of Scripture is a matter of FAITH. The correct interpretation of Scripture is called REVELATION. REVELATION is directly related to SALVATION. If the Church was wrong then it was wrong about the correct interpretation of Scripture, then it was wrong on a matter of FAITH, REVELATION. and SALVATION.

Augustine disagreed. The Church’s role is to interpret her own tradition as well as scripture for the purpose of defining and clarifying matters of faith and morals-matters* directly *concerned with salvation. To this end it matters not at all whether the earth circles the moon or the sun circles mars or if the pope happens to be the center of the universe.

 

[davidv]

The Galileo case, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, was not about science, but about the correct interpretation of Scripture. The correct interpretation of Scripture is a matter of FAITH. The correct interpretation of Scripture is called REVELATION. REVELATION is directly related to SALVATION. If the Church was wrong then it was wrong about the correct interpretation of Scripture, then it was wrong on a matter of FAITH, REVELATION. and SALVATION.

Based on everything I have read on the subject, this is gross oversimplification of the Galileo affair.

The correct interpretation is the concern of the Church. Individual interpretation is useful for growth in holiness as long as this interpretation is in line with Church teaching.

Revelation is not interpretation. Revelation is the wisdom and knowledge of God delivered to man by God Himself.

The Church has never been wrong about matters of faith and morals. Any errors in the Gallileo case were not related to the content of doctrinal teachings of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

Augustine disagreed. The Church’s role is to interpret her own tradition as well as scripture for the purpose of defining and clarifying matters of faith and morals-matters* directly *concerned with salvation. To this end it matters not at all whether the earth circles the moon or the sun circles mars or if the pope happens to be the center of the universe.

Would it be wrong of me to chuckle at the thought of the pope being the center of the universe? When I originally thought it was my hubby who occupied the center? Nonetheless, I may not chuckle when it comes to the dogma that God created all. Nor may I chuckle at the dogma that God created us to share in His divine life regardless of our place in the universe.

Seriously, if people really understood what Fhansen is saying, a lot of confusion would be avoided.
Thank you.