Has the Church ever been wrong?

[Abu]

To clarify the answer to the thread question: while Christ’s Church is infallible through Her Popes when defining doctrine on faith and morals to the whole Church as Peter’s successors, and in papally approved Ecumenical Councils similarly defining, none of her members, from the Pope down, is impeccable (sinless or faultless) themselves.

cassini
What do you mean ‘he never attempted to engage his infallibility.’ Did he say, ‘I do not engage my infallibility’? Engage his infallibility as regards what?

This poster knows little about the exercise of papal infallibility, yet claims “it is this case that gave birth to the ‘it was not infallible’ farce that is the only way the flock can be blinded to the real consequence of a heliocentric reading of the Bible allowed in the Church since 1835.”

true2ourselves.com/forum/general-discussions/4459-article-galileo-controversy.html
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0021.html
Both decrees of 1616 and 1633 were disciplinary, the first ordering Galileo not to defend the Copernican theory, the second condemning him for having broken the promise exacted of him by Cardinal Bellarmine. It is true indeed that the reasons which prompted the Pope and the Cardinals to act in both instances were doctrinal, but these reasons never form an integral part of the decree. Even in an infallible decision they may be considered erroneous.

In a sense the condemnation of Galileo was providential. It proved for all time that fallible bodies like the Roman Congregation ought not to dub a scientific theory heretical, and it prevented them from making a similar mistake for over three centuries. It proved also that whenever there is apparent contradiction between the truths of science and the truths of faith, either the scientist is wrong in advancing a mere hypothesis as a fact, or that the theologian errs in mistaking his personal opinions for the teaching of the Gospel.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know if this has been brought up but I thought these quotes from St Augustine, that I gleaned from Wiki, might be relevant for this discussion.

**It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

**

 

[cassini]

To clarify the answer to the thread question: while Christ’s Church is infallible through Her Popes when defining doctrine on faith and morals to the whole Church as Peter’s successors, and in papally approved Ecumenical Councils similarly defining, none of her members, from the Pope down, is impeccable (sinless or faultless) themselves.

This poster knows little about the exercise of papal infallibility, yet claims “it is this case that gave birth to the ‘it was not infallible’ farce that is the only way the flock can be blinded to the real consequence of a heliocentric reading of the Bible allowed in the Church since 1835.”

true2ourselves.com/forum/general-discussions/4459-article-galileo-controversy.html
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
.

’(2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; In Galileo’s case, [this] condition was not present’

Bellarmine’s judgement:
Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’**

Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world. He was canonised by Pius XI in june 1931 and proclaimed a doctor of the Church in August 1931

Now look up the Church’s attributes to Bellarmine in your daily missal, May 13th.

INTROIT: In the midst of the Church the Lord opened his mouth, and He filled him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding…
COLLECT: O God to overcome the snares of error and defend the Apostolic See, You endowed, blesseded Robert, Your bishop and doctor, with wonderous learning and virtue…

No theologian, no priest, no bishop, no cardinal, no pope ever challenged Bellarmine’s theology as to the matter being of faith not science. The Copernican Apologists however do, as Abu shows above.

Pope Urban VIII said this heresy would threaten the Catholic faith. The nonsense shown by the Copernicans on this and other threads demonstrates the desperate lengths they will go to to defend their ‘science’. They will portray this Saint as a theologian that couldn’t tell the defference between a matter of faith and a matter of science. Let this be the last time the popes and theologians of the seventeenth century be accused of such nonesense. I implore readers of these threads to see the harm being done to the faith comes not from those who have faith in Bellarmine’s judgement, that shared by all in 1616 and 1633, but from the Copernican apologists who insist and argue these men didn’t know their Catholic faith.

’(3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case, [this] condition was not present’
When was formal heresy defined for one or two persons? Really Abu, one tires of your Copernican Apologetics.

 

[grannymh]

Has the Church ever been wrong?

What is very important about the Catholic Church is its Deposit of Faith. While there is this and that. the true teachings are the duly defined, universally declared theological dogmas flowing from Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
There is no such thing as a “wrong” dogma.

 

[Abu]

cassini
No theologian, no priest, no bishop, no cardinal, no pope ever challenged Bellarmine’s theology as to the matter being of faith not science.

How strange that anyone self-styling themselves as “catholic” would attack the Christ’s Church on the matter of a cardinal (claiming an infallible definition for a decree and for a cardinal!) when not even popes have infallibility except when defining on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church as Supreme Pastors, much less theologians.
No reasons, nor arguments nor any other declarations outside of definitive statements on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church by the Pope proclaiming as Supreme Pastor, are infallible. The sneering, and playing at Magisterium, are puerile.

Bellarmine met with Galileo in 1616. After his meeting with Galileo nevertheless, even Cardinal Bellarmine said, “if there were a proof that the sun is in the center of the universe… While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still,” and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand then than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” (Cited by James Broderick, Robert Bellarmine: Saint and Scholar, pp. 360-361).
This prudence is conveniently omitted, but is at the core of the question, especially in view of the havoc being wrought on Biblical interpretation by Luther and his revolt.

As Fr Peter Damian Fehlner has shown: “[T]o forbid him [Galileo] to publish anything more on the subject…was an insistence that his particular theory be held merely as a hypothesis, until such time as the Church should have resolved the exegetical questions; to publicise the same in circumstances where it might easily be taken as proven fact by the uninformed would act to the detriment of their faith.” “In The Beginning”, Christ to the World, vol XXXIII, 1988, Rome, p 160].

 

[Leela]

How strange that anyone self-styling themselves as “catholic” would attack the Christ’s Church on the matter of a cardinal (claiming an infallible definition for a decree and for a cardinal!) when not even popes have infallibility except when defining on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church as Supreme Pastors, much less theologians.

And why is everyone blaming BP for the oil mess in the Gulf? How could it possible be BP’s fault when BP has always been *against *leaking oil? It was just some specific people working for BP like the CEO and the people who wrote the safety protocols that caused the problem. (Is that how this game of hide the ball works?)

 

[cassini]

Quote:
cassini
No theologian, no priest, no bishop, no cardinal, no pope ever challenged Bellarmine’s theology as to the matter being of faith not science.

How strange that anyone self-styling themselves as “catholic” would attack the Christ’s Church on the matter of a cardinal (claiming an infallible definition for a decree and for a cardinal!) when not even popes have infallibility except when defining on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church as Supreme Pastors, much less theologians.
No reasons, nor arguments nor any other declarations outside of definitive statements on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church by the Pope proclaiming as Supreme Pastor, are infallible. The sneering, and playing at Magisterium, are puerile.

Bellarmine met with Galileo in 1616. After his meeting with Galileo nevertheless, even Cardinal Bellarmine said, “if there were a proof that the sun is in the center of the universe… While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still,” and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand then than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” (Cited by James Broderick, Robert Bellarmine: Saint and Scholar, pp. 360-361).
This prudence is conveniently omitted, but is at the core of the question, especially in view of the havoc being wrought on Biblical interpretation by Luther and his revolt.

As Fr Peter Damian Fehlner has shown: “[T]o forbid him [Galileo] to publish anything more on the subject…was an insistence that his particular theory be held merely as a hypothesis, until such time as the Church should have resolved the exegetical questions; to publicise the same in circumstances where it might easily be taken as proven fact by the uninformed would act to the detriment of their faith.” “In The Beginning”, Christ to the World, vol XXXIII, 1988, Rome, p 160].

Abu, you posts get harder and harder to understand the points you are making in reply to my posts. Are you now saying that Bellarmine’s theology is not infallible so that too could be wrong in spite of no one in the Church since then has challenged this theology of revelation? I think this is exactly what you say above. Does this also mean that the theology of all the Fathers and doctors like St Thomas and indeed Cardinal Bellarmine could be all codswallop because they are not infallible?

Now readers will be able to see clearly how the ‘it was not infallible’ farce has made a mockery of the ordinary infallibility of Church teaching. In order to uphold a metaphysical assumption that believes the sun is fixed, all Catholic theology and doctrine is put up as possible TOTALLY in error with the OPPOSITE the possible truth.

Bellarmine’s (name removed by moderator)ut into the Galileo case was by way of pointing out sun-fixing was formally heretical. The Church took over in 1616 when it defined it as formal heresy. Quoting favourite sections of Bellarmine’s letter of 1615 to try to undermine the Church’s decree, as all Copernicans do, is to try to CHEAT others not familiar with the facts into believing something that simply is not valid.

How about this from Bellarmine’s letter as we are at it:

I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

Here for all to see was Bellarmine’s last words on the matter, **Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. ** As it happened, in 1905 Albert Einstein reintroduced the scientific fact of spatial relativity to the world, thereby showing all Bellarmine turned out to be instinctively **CORRECT —or likely to be demonstrated. ** -

 

[grannymh]

. Are you now saying that Bellarmine’s theology is not infallible so that too could be wrong in spite of no one in the Church since then has challenged this theology of revelation?

Are you making the good saint Robert Bellarmine head of his own Church?

It sounds as if you are placing HIS theology apart from the Catholic Church.

May I respectfully point out that it is the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is infallible.

The scholar Robert Belarmine was made a saint because he followed the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Please do not embarrass him by placing his wirtings above and apart from the Church he dearly loved.

 

[Leela]

Are you making the good saint Robert Bellarmine head of his own Church?

It sounds as if you are placing HIS theology apart from the Catholic Church.

May I respectfully point out that it is the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is infallible.

The scholar Robert Belarmine was made a saint because he followed the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Please do not embarrass him by placing his wirtings above and apart from the Church he dearly loved.

Is it your position that the Church never taught that the sun revolves around the earth and never condemned those who said otherwise?

 

[JDaniel]

And why is everyone blaming BP for the oil mess in the Gulf? How could it possible be BP’s fault when BP has always been *against *leaking oil? It was just some specific people working for BP like the CEO and the people who wrote the safety protocols that caused the problem. (Is that how this game of hide the ball works?)

Well. since BP is a fiction, it is a fictitious name, and that’s all, how can you blame BP? I don’t get it. Now, if you want to lay the blame, let’s blame all 60,000 employees. Sue them all, one by one, even if they’ve never seen the Gulf. Helter-skelter.

Or, if you are an attorney worth some salt, you sue the various resident agents from the States where that disaster’s effects were most harmful. You could also sue the President of BP. And, then, they, in turn, could sue the appropriate people working for them who were remiss. Then, you could perhaps sue the EPA for their part in allowing a potentially dangerous situation to exist.

By nature, that amount of oil leaks from the ocean floor every day, from what I can understand, and microbes do the job of eliminating it. There are a few pockets where excess oil has gathered, but, otherwise the overall, whole thing was a non-event. But, we’ll see.

God bless,
jd

 

[Leela]

Well. since BP is a fiction, it is a fictitious name, and that’s all, how can you blame BP? I don’t get it. Now, if you want to lay the blame, let’s blame all 60,000 employees. Sue them all, one by one, even if they’ve never seen the Gulf. Helter-skelter.

Or, if you are an attorney worth some salt, you sue the various resident agents from the States where that disaster’s effects were most harmful. You could also sue the President of BP. And, then, they, in turn, could sue the appropriate people working for them who were remiss. Then, you could perhaps sue the EPA for their part in allowing a potentially dangerous situation to exist.

By nature, that amount of oil leaks from the ocean floor every day, from what I can understand, and microbes do the job of eliminating it. There are a few pockets where excess oil has gathered, but, otherwise the overall, whole thing was a non-event. But, we’ll see.

God bless,
jd

BP is a fiction? That is a very odd position.

BP has taken responsibility for the oil spill. BP will pay damages and pay for the cleanup.

 

[grannymh]

Is it your position that the Church never taught that the sun revolves around the earth and never condemned those who said otherwise?

My position involves only Catholic dogma.

You will have to ask someone else about science issues regarding the physical sun and the physical earth in the physical universe.

 

[Dolllover]

No the church has never been wrong. The earth is the center of the universe, with everything revolves around it. Pangea never existed and the Arthur is 6000 years old

 

[cassini]

Are you making the good saint Robert Bellarmine head of his own Church?

It sounds as if you are placing HIS theology apart from the Catholic Church.

May I respectfully point out that it is the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is infallible.

The scholar Robert Belarmine was made a saint because he followed the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Please do not embarrass him by placing his wirtings above and apart from the Church he dearly loved.

Oh come now granny, you twist the discussion to have me say what I do not say. Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion was that a fixed-sun interpretation of Scripture was heretical.

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’ — Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.

I then pointed out that in his Letter to Foscarini he stated the matter was of faith:

‘Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

I then pointed out that the popes agreed with this opinion and defined it as a dogma in 1616 by way of negative decree - formal heresy is a contradiction of a dogma. I pointed out no pope, no cardinal, no theologian in the official history of the affair - that is in the many sessions of the Holy Office - disagreed with Bellarmine’s assessment, not once even in the years 1741-1835 when the ban of the Index was eliminated. That is a fact.

Now as I read Abu’s complicated post I thought what he was saying is that this assessment of Bellarmine’s was not infallible so it could be wrong for all, even a papal definition. Now of course Bellarmine’s opinion was not infallible, so could have been wrong. But given Pope Paul V defined and declared this opinion in his 1616 decree, that gave it the stamp of a solemn papal definition, that is immutable under the protection of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. I base my opinion on the dogma of infallibility described many years later in 1870 which clearly shows me the 1616 decree comes under the Ordinary Magisterium.

So Granny, it is you and abu and 99.999% of Catholics who embarrass Belarmine with your total rejection of his position in this regard, a position endorsed by all in the Church thereafter, not me.

 

[inocente]

Has the Church ever been wrong?

To no one in particular :

No amount of debating angels on pinheads will convince any reasonable person that a two thousand year old organization never once make a mistake. Stuff happens, we all know stuff happens. To an outsider it’s completely irrelevant to argue long complicated sets of ancient ifs and buts about internals. Nor would any reasonable person hold anything against the Church, particularly when a widely revered head publicly apologized for past mistakes.
*Wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, the Pope sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights. - guardian.co.uk

“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.” - JPII quoted in wikipedea*Good for him, and good for the Church.

 

[JDaniel]

BP is a fiction? That is a very odd position.

BP has taken responsibility for the oil spill. BP will pay damages and pay for the cleanup.

How, precisely, did BP do that? Did BP just open its huge BP mouth and utter the words, with its deep BP voice?

All corporations are fictitious entities. Last I looked, BP was, and still is, a corporation.

By the way, you’re not telling us anything new. You’re back to being argumentative, unless you never changed.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

According to the Catholic Church, a negative decree or a positive decree is not infallible dogma. No matter who claims it is.

Furthermore, what is the big deal? The actual dogma is that the universe is created by God. Who has denied that God is the Creator of both the earth and the sun?

People should stick to scientific discussions. No need to confuse actual Catholic teaching.
.

 

[grannymh]

So Granny, it is you and abu and 99.999% of Catholics who embarrass Belarmine with your total rejection of his position in this regard, a position endorsed by all in the Church thereafter, not me.

May I respectfully point out that I have not engaged in the scientific discussion regarding the earth and the sun.

I have listed a couple of times that the Catholic dogma is that God is the Creator. I believe that you will find that St. Robert Belarmine accepted God as the Creator and thus I agree with his position regarding God as Creator.

As to St. Rober Belarmine’s positions regrading movements of earth and sun or sun and earth, I consider those matters of natural science and thus I do not express an opinion one way or another.

 

[Leela]

May I respectfully point out that I have not engaged in the scientific discussion regarding the earth and the sun.

I have listed a couple of times that the Catholic dogma is that God is the Creator. I believe that you will find that St. Robert Belarmine accepted God as the Creator and thus I agree with his position regarding God as Creator.

As to St. Rober Belarmine’s positions regrading movements of earth and sun or sun and earth, I consider those matters of natural science and thus I do not express an opinion one way or another.

I guess you are saying that geocentrism was never dogma, so the fact that the Church was wrong about that doesn’t count against it. Which teachings of the church are dogma and which ones are not. Is it dogma that women are unfit to be priests, or is that something the church could be wrong about? Is it dogma that contraception is sinful? Is it dogma that homosexuals ought not marry? Is it dogma that women in AIDS infested Africa ought not demand that their husbands wear condoms to so that they won’t bring home STDs from their philandering? Or could the Church be wrong about these moral questions?

 

[edwest2]

I guess you are saying that geocentrism was never dogma, so the fact that the Church was wrong about that doesn’t count against it. Which teachings of the church are dogma and which ones are not. Is it dogma that women are unfit to be priests, or is that something the church could be wrong about? Is it dogma that contraception is sinful? Is it dogma that homosexuals ought not marry? Is it dogma that women in AIDS infested Africa ought not demand that their husbands wear condoms to so that they won’t bring home STDs from their philandering? Or could the Church be wrong about these moral questions?

Why don’t you read the Church teaching about each of these subjects? It is quite logical and consistent. The Church was not given authority from God to ordain women. That is the way the teaching was given. The word unfit was never used. Artificial contraception is against natural law and against the way God made the marriage relationship.

Your being confrontational does not examine the questions in light of Church teaching. You are simply accusing. If all of this bothers you so much, why do you post here so often? I have no interest in Mormonism, so I don’t go to any Mormon forums. The same with Judaism and Islam. I would not spend my time in such forums.

God bless,
Ed