Has the Church ever been wrong?

[VeritasSeeker]

What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
   a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn’t defined at the time)
   b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.

–Thanks in advance!

 

[mcteague]

The church does not claim infallability in all things. It specifically relates to some particular things and beliefs that define what being Catholic means.
So tbe church basically says you can have considerable latitude on a number of issues. But these particular things are not debateable if you want to call yourself a Catholic. Again they do not claim infallability as a general premise. So your friend is misunderstanding the term. To argue that any error by the Church makes all it’s teachings invalid is just as in invalid as arguing that it has that has never been wrong because we can construct a somewhat convoluted, semantic argument that actions or statements made by it’s representatives don’t count. Neither is correct, valid or fair.

I hope this is an adequate defense. This is not my are of expertise

 

[awatkins69]

What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
   a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn’t defined at the time)
   b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.

–Thanks in advance!

Yo. I’d argue against premise 2, saying that it’s a false premise. JPII did not apologize for the crusades or state that they were wrong in themselves. Rather, he apologized for the bad actions of some crusaders.

First of all, let’s understand quite clearly that religious war, in itself, is not immoral. It falls under the same condition of the Church’s just war theory as any other war. These criteria include:

-Just cause
-Comparative justice
-Legitimate authority
-Right intention
-Probability of success
-Last resort
-Proportionality

So in order to say that the Church, by endorsing crusades, directly contradicted itself, we’d have to go into more detail of whether a crusade fulfills these conditions. I’d say that crusades, in themselves, do not contradict just war theory.

Secondly, understand that JPII always apologized for the sins committed by those who were Catholic. He apologized for those who failed in their duties as Catholics, not for following what the Church said. He never says the Church sinned. That would indeed be directly contradicting Church teaching, since according to Catholic doctrine the Church cannot err. However, individual members of the Church can err, and indeed often have. He apologized and asked forgiveness for all those who fall into this category.

Also, you may find this link interesting:
ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM

 

[JM3]

What of the claim(that my muslim friend made) that Papal infallibility is false because Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades. The Claim is that the popes during the time of the crusades made official pronouncements regarding the morality of the crusades(note that The Church did not officially define papal infallibility until 1870). My friend argues that the crusades fall under the category of faith and morals thus the morality of the Crusades is not up for debate and since Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades it is said that this disproves Catholicism. The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. The morality(justness) of the Crusades was infallibly declared by the popes at the time.
   a. It was declared officially (ex cathedra though it wasn’t defined at the time)
   b. It was a matter of morals
2. Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades(implying they were immoral)
3. Therefore, Papal infallibility is false
4. Therefore, Catholicism is false.

–Thanks in advance!

Premise 1 is not correct. The crusades were not about morality, they were about politics and the economy.

 

[JM3]

It should be noted that not retracting or changing a position only demonstrates consistency, or an unwillingness to admit error, not that it has not been wrong.

Interesting statement. Do you apply this to yourself as well? (just curious)

 

[St_Francis]

Because Catholics don’t see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that’s how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church…

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church’s merits by the actions of it’s leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn’t prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.
…

The way to look at Church teaching versus the actions of some Catholics is this: are the Catholics who are doing bad things *following *or *deviating *from what the Church teaches?

In every case, the people are *not *following what the Church teaches; they are going *against *Church teaching, so their actions cannot reflect on Church teaching, can they?

Let’s look at those who follow Church teaching closely, the martyrs and other canonized saints. The martyrs were killed, some in excruciatingly painful ways, and yet praised God as they died. St Francis of Assisi kissed a leper. Mother Teresa (not yet canonized) picked up people who were dying in the streets of Calcutta, people who stank from the supporating sores on their bodies, in her own arms and carried them to the hospital.

Now, these people *were *following Catholic teaching, and their actions can be used to consider those teachings.

 

[St_Francis]

How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.

You have been answered about Galileo, the illegitimate children question is answered in my post above, and the reports of the Pope’s not condemning Naziism have been greatly exaggerated.

In 1937, while some prominent Americans were still praising the Nazi system, the Pope wrote Mit Bennender Sorge, in German, and had it read in every church on Passion Sunday of that year. The Nazi response was to put Catholic monks and priests “on trial” and throw them in prison, as well as closing presses and confiscating every copy they could lay their hands on. Later, when the Dutch bishops rebuked the Nazis there, the Nazis retaliated by rounding people up for concentration camps. The Catholic hierarchy worked behind the scenes to save people rather than inflaming a situation about which they could do nothing.

The utter myth of “Hitler’s Pope” was first promulgated in the 1960’s when the Soviet Union paid a playwright to write a play saying that. It’s nothing more than the propaganda of those who were our enemies.

 

[Wowbagger]

As far as I know, illegitmate children is hearsay.

Unfortunately, this one is pretty much definitely true. I mean, we have no 16th century DNA testing, but we have tremendous amount of historical evidence indicting Pope Alexander VI for having all kinds of illegitimate children. Pope Alex also had a nasty habit of giving his teenaged children powerful cardinalships. GOOD TIMES. (I had a wonderful Benedictine professor in Rome who thought the Vatican should open up the “Pope Alexander VI Institute for Marriage and Family Life” – because Pope Alex loved his children so much!)

Unfortunately, Pope Alex probably wasn’t the worst. Our records of the 10th century are much more fragmented, on account of the 10th century being approximately the WORST century EVER… but what records we do have suggest that we had a series of very, very bad popes… which were part of a papal dynasty, handed down father-to-son on at least one occasion.

The fact that the Church survived that is, in my opinion, evidence in favor of the Holy Spirit’s protection. But… geeze. Sometimes I wish the Holy Spirit guaranteed a little more of the Church than just the occasional Magisterial proclamation. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could rest assured that the USCCB would do the right thing in election cycles, or that Popes wouldn’t call for Christendom to ride into a doomed crusade, or that those mean old ladies in the pew next to us at the 10 AM Sunday Mass you know who you are would just be tolerably pleasant when they’re in the pew?

But the Holy Spirit sends us what we need: infallible teaching, saints, and opportunities for martyrdom.

 

[Abu]

Big Dummy
Was not Galileo censored when he was right and the church was wrong?

No.
Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy. He was treated fairly.

mcteague
I think it is a mistake to consider the church the enemy of the secularist. I would simply say it offers a way which it feels is better.

Secularism is the enemy of Catholicism, and of reality, for it falsely assumes that whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based.
“Feeling” is worthless for truth and error. Secularism rejects reality which exists because God created mankind subject to the natural moral law known from reason as to cause and effect, and the Christ established His Church to enable us to know His truth with certainty, and to be able to choose freely to follow that truth.

BTW, dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC #88).

Defined doctrine on faith or morals, such as in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) against contraception, and in the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1994) on male-only priests, is infallible.

As stated previously, dogma and defined doctrine can never be contradicted.

 

[cassini]

Because Catholics don’t see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that’s how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church. Catholics are taught to look at the dogma, theology and official teachings and notice that they are unchanging and consistent through time. Corruption within the Church, for example, would be a violation of a dogma such as all of a sudden teaching that the Immaculate Conception was a false teaching. Or if the Church body would change the contents of the Apostles or Nicene creeds – because they are unchanging by dogmatic teaching – that would be a corruption.

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church’s merits by the actions of it’s leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn’t prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.

Or for example, with the priests who have molested children and haven’t been removed, or have been transferred to other parishes, or have otherwise been protected by the Church, we are supposed to look at those priests and their superiors as sinners, or those who have made mistakes or had poor judgement, and not as a reflection of the Church. So the gates of Hell don’t prevail even though priests who represent the Church commited these crimes, and they were shuffled around and not removed – it is not supposed to be a reflection on the Church itself, but on the priests and their superiors themselves.

I hope that makes sense. I’m not good at explaining that aspect of what the Church teaches. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But even if all the Church leaders are corrupt, we are not supposed to look at it as a reflection on the Church itself. When looking at the Church and it’s “corruptibility”, we are supposed to look at the dogma, theology and other teachings, which we are assured can never be wrong even though those who make the rules can be wrong in their personal lives.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world looking at the Church doesn’t see it that way because they were not taught that way. Usually institutions are judged by the merits of their leaders and other representatives. So I think that the sins of such leaders or authority figures are that much more detrimental because they DO reflect back on the Church. Many people believe the Catholic Church is corrupt from the inside out because the actions of those who represent the Church – which reflect back at the Church to non-Catholics. And even to some Catholics.

Terrific post Rence. You are great at explaining your thoughts and I agree with every one of them. Recently I reads a book TALISMAN that described the slaughter of heretics, nay the attempted genocide, around 400AD.
The Church however is a unique institution. It cannot be touched or be guilty of what its members do. It teaches DO NOT KILL, yet there were killings, lots of them, in the name of the Church. Had Church teaching not forbidden killing it could of course have been accused of the same offence. So too with all the sins committed by its members to this very day. Secular society ridicules the Church for its moral teaching, yet see how they judge when they find a priest or someone who breakes the same laws.
The wrongs of popes however is another thing. Today, or shall we say in the last few centuries, we have had well behaved popes, so viewing a pope almost as a saint has returned to the Church. But we still had popes like the Borgas who lived like kings with their concubines producing children and most of all giving scandal that must have led many to hell. ‘Well the pope saw no problem, so why should I?’
The missing question then comes down to the Catholic view of the Holy Ghost’s part in the day to day activities of the Church. Today the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, is said to be behind every move they make in Rome these days. FREE WILL has been removed and the impression is that the Holy Ghost wakes the Pope up every morning and dictates to them how He wants them and the Church to change, how He wants to get rid of priests to be replaced by lay-women in His churches for example.
I howeve do not believe that post-Vatican II propaganda. I believe Rome and its hierarchy is now structured just like any multi-national company, with the smart lads climbing to the top where some day they go from vice-president to President, just like Cardinal Ratzinger. Had the papal conclaves elected some obscure bishop for his holiness then I might see the inspiration of the Holy Ghost directly involved in the choice of pope, not the simple allowance of man’s free will to chose the pope from the vice-president’s office.
Otherwise the doctrine and mystery of man’s free will is rejected. If the Holy Ghost dictates what a pope does, how is he going to save himself? Is that fair to a robber in whom the HG did not take over?
God can do this, that is, allow man to chose popes and behave as they will. What He promised was that no pope will officially contradict, deny or change a dogma or doctrine once it has been defined and declared. He meant by this He would not allow it to happen.

 

[Abu]

cassini
The Church however is a unique institution. It cannot be touched or be guilty of what its members do.

No wonder this poster is a self-proclaimed small “c” catholic.

Quite oblivious to real history, and to the reality of Christ’s Church, and the repetitive reforms for Her members from Her inception by Christ. Apparently he’s never heard of the very public apologies for the failures of Her members by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Be wary of wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

Rence
So I think that the sins of such leaders or authority figures are that much more detrimental because they DO reflect back on the Church. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is.

Well the sooner you do listen to Christ Himself, and reflect on His teaching, the sooner will you see the spotlessness of His Church in Her dogma and doctrine, Her Eucharistic Sacrifice, Her sacraments, and the virtuous lives of Her saints.

One chosen by Christ Himself was Judas, who betrayed Him.

Do you not know how the Christ spoke to His own Apostles? To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

So the concern for you is – what are you doing to know Christ’s teaching, to offer it to others and to live it?

 

[cassini]

No wonder this poster is a self-proclaimed small “c” catholic.

Quite oblivious to real history, and to the reality of Christ’s Church, and the repetitive reforms for Her members from Her inception by Christ. Apparently he’s never heard of the very public apologies for the failures of Her members by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Be wary of wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

Well the sooner you do listen to Christ Himself, and reflect on His teaching, the sooner will you see the spotlessness of His Church in Her dogma and doctrine, Her Eucharistic Sacrifice, Her sacraments, and the virtuous lives of Her saints.

One chosen by Christ Himself was Judas, who betrayed Him.

Do you not know how the Christ spoke to His own Apostles? To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51) ). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

So the concern for you is – what are you doing to know Christ’s teaching, to offer it to others and to live it?

Time was when CA was a debating forum. Lately I find any opportunity to attack the integrity of the poster seems to be the main object of certain posters.

The so-called small ‘c’ on my profile that you use to attack my catholicism is merely a typo-error, nothing else, not a smart a** message that there is a difference between a Catholic spelled with a capital c or not. I am a dinosaur when it comes to computers so wouldn’t know how to change it.

Sorry Abu if I do not hold Pope John Paul II as anything but a pope who presided over the greatest decline in Catholicism in its history. The Church did not need his apologies. It is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever. To apologise on its behalf suggests it was guilty of those things apologised for. That is the message as interpreted by the world, that the pope was apologising for the ‘Church’s’ errors. As far as I’m concerned, a pope can apologise for his own failings, but not for the failings of others.

As for your sermon that follows, I haven’t a clue what it means.

Anyway, back to the thread title 'Has the Church ever been wrong.’ Well here is one for you Abu to demonstrate your wonderful knowledge of the Church.

Undoubtedly, under the current interpretation of history, the Galileo case is one case where the Church was wrong.
Some 6,000 books have been written on the Galileo case in order to try to explain away the fact that it fell into error. Pope John Paul II set up an investigation intended also to try to get the Church off the hook…

The facts are that in 1616 the pope, through the instrument set up for the good of the Church (institutions that Vatican I says are to be obeyed), defined and declared a fixed sun, moving earth belief is formal heresy because it contradicts the revelation of G in the Bible, an interpretation held by all the Fathers. While not a dogma, a unanimous interpretation of the Fathers is taken to be infallible guarantee of truth. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII endorced the 1616 decree as ‘immutable’, that is cannot change, almost a seventeenth century guarantee of infallibility not defined until 1870. In time this decree was TAKEN TO BE AN ERROR. Never before or after in history of the Church was a binding definition of formal heresy found to be an error, a truth condemned under pain of sin and excommunication. This was, they admit a ONCE-OFF in the history of the Church. ** I say, once is enough**.

Needless to say the old infallibility ploy is the best for the Apologists. In the Galileo case, where an interpretation of the Bible was defined and declared as FORMAL HERESY, but later BELIEVED to have been in error, is fobbed off with the ‘it wasn’t infallible’, so the Church can get it wrong in these cases. And why do I say CHURCH, rather than Inquisition, or Holy Office? Well you see the history of this Roman Inquisition was instituted to deal with the gravest of heresies to infiltrate the Church. It was always chaired by Peter himself. All its decisions, while not ex-cathedra infallible, were under the orders of the Pope. Thus a Church decision.

Now it is in keeping with the integrity of the Catholic Church that when it decides such a grave matter of formal heresy, be it an infallible definition OR NOT, that it be a truth upon which Catholics can take guidance? This spiritual guidance is now redundant, for now, after the Galileo sham, only infallible DEFINITIONS by the popes need be thought of as actually true. EVERYTHING ELSE IS POTENTIALLY ERRONEOUS, this is the legacy of the 1741 U-turn against the 1616 and 1640 decrees

The second trick is to say it was not a matter of faith but a matter of science, championed recently by Pope John Paul II. This is nothing but an insult on the Church of 1616, 1633, its popes, its St. Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the greatest theologians that ever served the Church, and the multitude of theologians involved in the matter.
It suggests all these men didn’t know the difference between a matter of faith from a matter of science. It means that when they tried to protect the Sacred Scriptures from false interpretation, that was a matter for science but that these great men couldn’t tell the difference. What an insult, not only on them but on the Church itself. It suggests the Church was run by men who couldn’t tell the difference.

Perhaps the greatest scandal is how Catholics had to go along with this sham in order to save their Church’s claims. As though the Church needed their help. Today, the truth is re-emerging, but intellual pride is dead set against it and the sham prevails. Just see the websites recommended by posters.

 

[cassini]

Aw come on you guys, letting this one slip down the list into oblivium will not save the current belief system in the Church; that it is protected by the Holy Ghost and so never gets any matter of faith wrong while the Galileo case stands out like a sore-thumb in history.
You realise that by your silence the above argument wins. Why not bring on the heavy theologians, the ones who have been fooling Catholics for centuries.

 

[Abu]

cassini
It is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever.

At last some sense from this poster over Vatican II. Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].

In First Things (November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”

Pope John Paul II as anything but a pope who presided over the greatest decline in Catholicism in its history. The Church did not need his apologies. That is the message as interpreted by the world, that the pope was apologizing for the ‘Church’s’ errors.

How fatuous, after the development of doctrine in Vatican II, and the faithful stewardship of John Paul the Great. Readers should know that:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in Christ Denied TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

 

[tskrobacz]

Has the Church ever been wrong?

Your question is flawed. To respond someone must place a personal judgement - neither a yes nor no answer will suffice as it would require supporting argument that itself would always be subject to debate or personal judgement.

 

[Abu]

Cassini
a binding definition of formal heresy – In the Galileo case, where an interpretation of the Bible was defined and declared as FORMAL HERESY, but later BELIEVED to have been in error, is fobbed off with the ‘it wasn’t infallible’, so the Church can get it wrong in these cases.This spiritual guidance is now redundant, for now, after the Galileo sham, only infallible DEFINITIONS by the popes need be thought of as actually true. EVERYTHING ELSE IS POTENTIALLY ERRONEOUS, this is the legacy of the 1741 U-turn against the 1616 and 1640 decrees Needless to say the old infallibility ploy is the best for the Apologists.
Undoubtedly, under the current interpretation of history, the Galileo case is one case where the Church was wrong.

This poster interminably confuses doctrine with discipline, and imbibes false history.

In his multivolume A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 *The Cleaving of Christendom *(Christendom Press, 2000), Dr Warren H Carroll writes that the 1916 decree against Galileo as published by the eleven theologians of the Inquisition did not declare his teaching “heretical”. He cites Broderick’s Robert Bellarmine, p 372. In fact, Pope Urban VIII declared that the Copernican theory was not heretical (p 540, citing von Pastor’s History of the Popes).

Galileo was never declared a heretic by any Pope, or Ecumenical Council – by Christ’s Church. The Church enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing.

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]

Certainly Christ’s Church was not empowered by Him to decide scientific questions, as St Augustine had said more than a thousand years before, and a tribunal calling the theory “false and absurd” was wrong.

See Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
“The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

“No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.”

 

[cassini]

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

Yeh, like Maynooth, Ireland, the LAST seminary in Ireland.

Irish daily Mail – wed. July 21, 2010.
I’ve lost my job for telling the truth but I’ve no regrets.
For months DR. MARK DOOLEY has written here of his concerns about seminary education in Ireland. Young trainee priests have thanked him for his courage. But what of Maynooth?
They fired him…
By Dr Mark Dooley.

Last Saturday [July 17, 2010], this newspaper carried a special investigation conducted by my colleague, Philip Nolan, entitled An Unpriestly Education.
Truly shocking revelations, I know but nothing that I have not said before in this newspaper. Since last May, I have regularly devoted my weekly column to the awful state of seminary formation in this country [Ireland]. I did so, not because I wished to harm the Church. As a devout Catholic, that would be the last thing on my agenda.

No, I did so because, for some years, I have been receiving disturbing reports from priests and seminarians about dubious practices inside the seminary. Since 2006, I have lectured in philosophy at NUI Maynooth and was thus in close contact with clerical students, many of whom were obliged to attend my courses. As someone with a public profile, they believed I could bring widespread attention to their difficult plight.
So, following publication of the Ryan and Murphy reports into clerical child sex abuse, I decided their stories should be heard. It seemed perfectly obvious to me that something had gone terribly wrong with priestly formation in Ireland and that, as I wrote here: ‘it is only when the priest recognises his role as that of “alter Christus” – another Christ – that the Church will rediscover its true vocation.’ For you simply could not be misguided as an alter Christus ‘and abuse anyone, least of all a child.’

Now I have been writing for Irish newspapers for more than a decade. During that time, I shed light on the darker side of Islam – something that earned me a death threat. But nothing I have ever written has engendered such a reaction as those recent columns on the seminary system.
From the time the first piece appeared, my mailbox was deluged with letters of support from seminarians, ex-seminarians and priests, all confirming the truth of my assertions. I was also informed that senior members of the Roman curia had read my articles, one remarking that ‘this Dooley business does not surprise me at all. The only surprise is that it has taken so long for to bring it to public attention.’ To this day letters of appreciation continue to arrive from Britain and America, many asking, in the words of one correspondent, ‘Do your Bishops know or care what is going on? And if they do, why isn’t something being done to keep those faithful young men in the priesthood?’
Needless to say, in the wake of Philip Nolan’s disturbing revelations last Saturday, the volume of correspondence has increased.
Ordinary Catholics simply cannot believe that so many young men are being forced out of the seminary because ‘too holy, too priestly and too pious.’ Others, mostly priests, are delighted that a system they endured only because there was no alternative, has finally become exposed.
The most appreciative however, are those courageous young seminarians who decided silence was no longer an option. The fact that a national newspaper took up their case and revealed the appalling nature of their ‘training’ is, for them and their families, a blessing.
This, along with the fact that the Pope’s apostolic visitor to Maynooth, Archbishop Timity Doolan of New York, has read my columns, gives them hope that things will soon change. Still, all of this seems to have come at a personal cost. Last Friday I received a letter from NUI Maynooth, stating they could no longer retain my services. They cite the need ‘to identify any possible savings in light ‘of expected cuts to our budget in 2010-2011.

Now it is possible that this is a coincidence. But it does seem strange to me that just before my columns on seminary formation began appearing in the Irish Daily Mail, I had been invited to teach on the Graduate Programme at Maynooth next year.
In April I had also been responsible for the most successful event in the history of the Philosophy Department, when I brought Roger Scruton to give an Aquinas lecture.
And then in the space of six weeks every thing changed. Now there is no money to employ me at a university I have served for four years, and whose profile I raised through mu columns and books……
My departure from Maynooth will do nothing to stop me [fighting for the cause.]…
For the simple truth is that I am, first and foremost, a Catholic who longs to see the Church renewed in the real image of Christ…… .
As Christ showed, taking on the Pharisees is not without its consequences. But standing by and saying nothing has its costs. And if it is a choice between crucifixion and connivance, I know which cross I must shoulder every time.

Now do you want to read Philip Nolan’s disturbing revelations?

 

[cassini]

This poster interminably confuses doctrine with discipline, and imbibes false history.

In his multivolume A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 *The Cleaving of Christendom *(Christendom Press, 2000), Dr Warren H Carroll writes that the 1916 decree against Galileo as published by the eleven theologians of the Inquisition did not declare his teaching “heretical”. He cites Broderick’s Robert Bellarmine, p 372. In fact, Pope Urban VIII declared that the Copernican theory was not heretical (p 540, citing von Pastor’s History of the Popes).
.”

My position Abu is that History records the Church was wrong when it defined and declared a fixed sun/moving earth as formal heresy, so wrong they knew it challenged the claim of divine inspiration when a pope defines a matter of faith or morals.
The new Copernican churchmen knew this so had to allow the greatest whitewash in history so as to deceive its way out of the contradiction this error caused.
Every book and article that I have read, and they are many, tries to do this by perverting the truth of the Galileo case.
This was easily achieved for the simple reason that Catholics are trained to believe what they are told by their popes, and because only half a dozen people on earth had the time to investigate every detail of the Galileo affair.
The mere fact that Catholic scholars have to conjure up excuses shows all are aware something very wrong happened in the Galileo case and that this has to be cleared up.

Now let me show how Carroll tried to fool his readers.

On the 19th Feb. 1616, eleven chosen theologian-qualifiers of the Supreme Inquisition were sent the following propositions for their consideration in the light of scriptural exegesis:

(1) That the sun is in the centre of the world, and is totally immovable as for locomotion.
(2) That the earth is neither in the centre of the world nor immovable, but moves as a whole and in daily motion.

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th 1616 , the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

OK, that is the 1616 decree. It was a decree against a heresy, not Galileo’

Here is the verdict at Galileo’s trial, dictated by Pope Urban VIII.

The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope’s orders, dismissed him to his place: The next day he was summoned to the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence was pronounced:’

The Inquisition’s Sentence

‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”

Now here is where Carroll & Co. try to hide the truth by saying that Galileo was never accused of heresy and that Pope Urban VIII declared the Copernican theory was not heretical . Any doctrine contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture is a heresy.
And that Abu is a perfect example of DECEPTION among Catholics in order to try to hide the truth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My position Abu is that History records the Church was wrong when it defined and declared a fixed sun/moving earth as formal heresy, so wrong they knew it challenged the claim of divine inspiration when a pope defines a matter of faith or morals.
The new Copernican churchmen knew this so had to allow the greatest whitewash in history so as to deceive its way out of the contradiction this error caused.
Every book and article that I have read, and they are many, tries to do this by perverting the truth of the Galileo case.
This was easily achieved for the simple reason that Catholics are trained to believe what they are told by their popes, and because only half a dozen people on earth had the time to investigate every detail of the Galileo affair.
The mere fact that Catholic scholars have to conjure up excuses shows all are aware something very wrong happened in the Galileo case and that this has to be cleared up.

Now let me show how Carroll tried to fool his readers.

On the 19th Feb. 1616, eleven chosen theologian-qualifiers of the Supreme Inquisition were sent the following propositions for their consideration in the light of scriptural exegesis:

(1) That the sun is in the centre of the world, and is totally immovable as for locomotion.
(2) That the earth is neither in the centre of the world nor immovable, but moves as a whole and in daily motion.

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th 1616 , the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

OK, that is the 1616 decree. It was a decree against a heresy, not Galileo’

Here is the verdict at Galileo’s trial, dictated by Pope Urban VIII.

The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope’s orders, dismissed him to his place: The next day he was summoned to the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence was pronounced:’

The Inquisition’s Sentence

‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”

Now here is where Carroll & Co. try to hide the truth by saying that Galileo was never accused of heresy and that Pope Urban VIII declared the Copernican theory was not heretical . Any doctrine contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture is a heresy.
And that Abu is a perfect example of DECEPTION among Catholics in order to try to hide the truth.

Um, no offense my friend, but Dr. Carroll has credentials. YOU are just pulling up statements from heaven knows where (because you aren’t giving us any links, or any idea from where you cut this ‘The Document Says"), you have exactly what in the line of credentials yourself, and we’re supposed to believe that Dr. Carroll is pulling some vast DECEPTION (your own words) to try to bolster the "Church was not wrong’ kind of ‘conspiracy based on your say-so’?

I don’t think so. . .

 

[cassini]

This poster interminably confuses doctrine with discipline, and imbibes false history.

Galileo was never declared a heretic by any Pope, or Ecumenical Council – by Christ’s Church. The Church enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing.

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]

Certainly Christ’s Church was not empowered by Him to decide scientific questions, as St Augustine had said more than a thousand years before, and a tribunal calling the theory “false and absurd” was wrong.

See Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
“The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

“No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.”

Galileo, because he denied that he held a fixed sun/moving earth as a truth COULD NOT be found guilty of heresy. But all knew he was lying, that is, committing perjury, every biography on Galileo shows this. Thus he could only be found guilty of suspected heresy by the Holy Office under the direct order of the Pope.

Sherwood Taylor’s experience has no bearing on the truth.

The Church never decided a scientific question, it defended the truth of Revelation. St Augustine had no authority over the Church.

Catholic Answers Galileo website is but another Apologist charter, all the usual tricks and ploys to cloud the fact that the Church defined and declared a false heresy.

Oh yes, the ‘disciplinary’ ploy. Again here are the minutes of Galileo’s trial:

“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.” **

Now who are they trying to fool calling the above a ‘disciplinary’ matter. Disciplinary matters can be changed. Here however Pope Urban VIII demonstrates the IMMUTIBILITY of the decree and that ain’t disciplinary.

Finally, it wasn’t taught infallibly. It was deemed IMMUTIBLE by Pope Urban VIII. It was taught. Note the Galileo case Apologists would have us think because it was not taught infallibly it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. In other words, the non-infallible teachings of the Church could all be erroneous, false. My God what sort of Church has the Galileo case produced?