Heilocentrism infallibly condemned

[itsjustdave1988]

masterjedi747:

Alright, now I’m just confused.
I have absolutely no idea who Father Roberts is…but Pope John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is indeed quite clearly infallible.

I’m not claiming that the doctrine affirmed by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible. I’m pointing out that as a papal act, is was not ex cathedra., that is, infallible by the virtue of the extraordinary magisterium. As such, the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not a Pontifical ex cathedra act.

Yet, if we were to use the criteria used by theWhim above, it *must be ex cathedra.*This shows that theWhim isn’t quite the definitive word about what constitutes an *ex cathedra *pontifical act when he asserts that Geocentrism is a de fide doctrine by virtue of a Pontifical ex cathedra act.

In 2 July issue of La Civilta Cattolica, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly stated Ordinatio Sacerdotatlis was an act of the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, of an act therefore *not definitive or solemn ex cathedra.*Thus, it is not de fide definita.

One’s opinion that the pope exercised his solemn magisterium doesn’t make it so. The pope himself asserted he exercised his ordinary magisterium. I find arguing against the pope who promulgated the document to be rather absurd.

The mistake many Catholics make is that they think the conditions for ex cathedra pronouncements are therefore the cause of ex cathedra pronouncements. On the contrary, the cause of ex cathedra pronouncements is the will of the pope. Conditions can only create a barrier to ex cathedra status, but the presence of these conditions cannot cause ex cathedra status contrary to the will of the pope. For example, being a male is a condition of the priesthood. Which means all valid priests are male. It doesn’t follow that since I’m male, I must be a priest. The condition doesn’t cause the state, but can certainly–if lacking–create a barrier to the state. It is similar to “proper disposition” which* if lacking* creates a barrie**r to worthy reception of the Sacrament. However, no theologian in their right mind would assert the condition of “proper disposition” is the cause of the Sacrament.

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t want to hijack the thread…but I really want to finish this tangent topic. And besides that, when all is said and done, I think we can reasonably tie this into the discussion.

itsjustdave1988:

I’m not claiming that the doctrine affirmed by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible. I’m pointing out that as a papal act, is was not ex cathedra., that is, infallible by the virtue of the extraordinary magisterium…

I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you. I think it quite clearly was “ex cathedra”. Pope John Paul II made this abundantly clear by including the phrase “In virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren [Luke 22:32]”. If that phrase wasn’t included, I’d agree with you, but…

1. Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
2. Lumen Gentium, Appendix III: "And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith [Luke 22:32], by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith."

itsjustdave1988:

Yet, if we were to use the criteria used by theWhim above, it must be ex cathedra.… One’s opinion that the pope exercised his solemn magisterium doesn’t make it so.

And I absolutely agree with you. It has to be explicit and abundantly clear that the Pope is invoking his Papal Authority in order for it to be “ex cathedra”…AND it has to be dealing with matters of faith and morals (not science). theWhim’s fails on both points, so we really don’t have to worry about that. Ordinatio Sacerdotais is a different matter altogether, however.

itsjustdave1988:

In 2 July issue of La Civilta Cattolica, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly stated Ordinatio Sacerdotatlis was an act of the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, of an act therefore not definitive or solemn ex cathedra.

The pope himself asserted he exercised his ordinary magisterium. I find arguing against the pope who promulgated the document to be rather absurd.

Hold on…Pope John Paul II said so, or Cardinal Ratzinger did? Regardless, however, Ratzinger’s opinion itself isn’t infallible…one’s opinion that the Pope didn’t exercise his solemn magisterium doesn’t make it so, either. On the other hand, we know what Pope John Paul II wrote. That phrase was intentionally included. I find it much easier to argue against Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation of the text than to argue against the facts and citeria clearly laid out in our earlier Church documents in the issue. To quote Fr. Peter Pilsner: “With all due respect to Cardinal Ratzinger, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…guess what?”

Bibliography/Sources:

1. ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
2. ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT
3. catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

 

[a_clare]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, JSmitty, that is certainly true…but do they possess humility? Reverence for those they address? The gentleness and lowliness exhibited by Our Savior, who should be THE model of us all? I’ve had conversations with lots of teens on these forums and while many have their facts and their heads straight, they sound (and thus seem) to be lacking the other aforementioned qualities (your good self excluded, of course…and Eamon, he’s above reproach).

Plus, while Dave may have been firm with the OP, he was hardly unkind. Compare that to the OP’s assertion that we either embrace geocentrism or “leave the Church.” Do you see what I mean?

I am only 19, and realize that I know very little of the world, and even less of theology. The more I learn, the more I realize that I actually know very little. I do, however, have a desire to learn more about God, about our Church, and about anything else that will help me to grow in my faith. I understand that itsjustdave was bringing up thewhim’s age only to point out that he is not as knowledgeable as theologians who have studied for much longer than he (and I) have even been alive, and I agree. In hoping to learn more, I embrace the Church’s 2000 year old teachings, as well as the wisdom of all who are older and/or more knowledgeable than myself in such matters. This has, in my experience, included people of all ages, as I have often met others my age with both abundant knowledge of the faith and sincere humility. I am on this forum mainly to learn from other more skilled apologists so that I may become better at my apologetics skills.
In Him,
Angela

"Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. " 1 Timothy 4:12

 

[franciscomarto]

I think the Church proclaimed the truth when it condemened heliocentricism and approved geocentricism, from both a theological and a scientific viewpoint.

Lemme explain…

The perceived motion and location of any mass is dependant on the obeservers frame of reference. Thus, as I am walking at 2mph on the surface of the earth, an observer located on the earth could **correctly ** say “that guy is walking 2mph forward”.

However, say the earth is spinning the other direction at 1,000 miles per hour. Thus, an observer from space could **correctly ** say “that guy is spinning 998mph backwards through space”.

Furthermore, the earth is spinning around the sun at a speed of 70,000 mph. Thus, an observer outside our solar system could **correctly ** say “that guy is moving through space at 70,000mph around the sun.” But remember, I am still only walking at 2mph on the surface of the earth!

In the same way, in an infinite universe where infinite frames of referance are possible, it is equally **true ** to say that the “earth revolves around the sun, and the solar system moves through the galaxy”, as it is to say the “sun and all the heavenly bodies revolve around a fixed point of space which is the earth”. It all depends on our reference frame.

Now, lets assume the entire universe is a fixed size. It is incredibally huge (bigger than we can ever imagine, but it does have borders which we will never discover.

Thus, we can say there is an ultimate reference frame which belongs to God alone. Only God can view the universe from outside its borders.

What if, according to this maximum reference frame (God’s reference frame), the earth WAS the center **fixed ** center of the universe?

Obviously, from our limited reference frames, it is easier to explain the movemement of the earth and planets and stars as if we move around the sun, but what if WE were actually the **fixed ** center (when viewed from the maximum reference frame) and everything actually revolved around us?

Hope that makes sense. If not, let me know. I gotta go to work now.

Francisco

 

[JimG]

The discussion about relative references is fine, but I don’t think it’s what the author of the book of Genesis had in mind. I think the author of Genesis simply used the cosmology that was the common worldview of the time: a fixed, transparent firmament, with the stars above and the earth below.

It’s not something I worry about because I don’t expect the bible to teach scientific cosmology. If Christians of earlier ages—both Catholic and Protestant-- thought that Bible actually intended to teach geocentrism, as many of them did, then they were simply wrong, even if they were cardinals or popes, since popes don’t teach infallibly on scientific matters.

 

[Returnee]

TheWhim:

Paraphrased: One must believe in geocentricism to be a true Catholic.

Are you Sungenis ?

Please read this and pay particular attention to the following:

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

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.

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.

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.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

 

[ncjohn]

I’ve read through the bulk of this thread and find it very interesting, and quite frankly feel like a disinterested observer with no axe to grind in the infallibility debate would find good arguments on both sides of the question.

Since the “ex Cathedra” definition and specifications didn’t exist at the time of the action, the debate as to whether it does or doesn’t qualify under that definition–or whether the Pope would have meant it to–will be difficult if not impossible to ascertain. It becomes a matter of faith on whether you accept that it did or didn’t or if it needed to.

In thinking about it over the weekend though, I have come up with a different question concerning this that hopefully someone can resolve for me.

When questions are brought up about *Humanae Vitae * or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the common objection is that they were not proclaimed ex Cathedra and are therefore not infallible. The answer given to that, by many of those posting here, is that it is infallible by the Ordinary Magisterium, since it has been “always and everywhere taught”, and did not require an ex Cathedra proclaimation. And of course, if that is true (and I believe it is) then the argument over whether the Pope did or didn’t mean for OS to be *ex Cathedra * (which I believe he didn’t since both he and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, with his blessing, said he didn’t) is irrelevant. Both statements are just affirmations and clarifications of what was already infallible Catholic doctrine by virtue of its having been “always and everywhere taught”.

The dilemna this presents is that I see a distinct parallel in the case at hand. To me, whether the Pope’s statement was or wasn’t *ex Cathedra * is irrelevant to the question. The real questions in my mind are these: 1) Is this a matter of “faith and morals”? and 2) Had it been “always and everywhere taught” up to that point in time. If it meets those requirements, it would seem to me that it would have to qualify as infallible Catholic doctrine just as HV and OS do.

As to the first question–the argument that the Church does not rule on matters of science notwithstanding–the crux of the case was that the Church believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that to not believe that was contrary to scripture. While certainly not “primary matter” like the Virgin birth or the Resurrection, it certainly is faith-related if the question is promoting a belief that contradicts scripture, at least equally in my mind to the subject matter of either HV or OS, neither of which invole primary matter.

The second question to me is the trickier one, although I have not seen anyone claim that the Church had not “always and everywhere” taught geocentrism up to that point–even to the point of “disciplining” anyone who claimed differently. If indeed they had, then the Pope’s statement would seem to be no different than the statements of HV and OS–just clarification of what was already infallible Catholic doctrine under the Ordinary Magisterium, and whether it meets the requirements of being *ex Cathedra * would be irrelevant as it is with the other two.

I’m sure there must be a flaw in this (maybe there is another requirement I’m not considering), but I’m curious how to reconcile this since it makes it appear that some people might be trying to “have it both ways” in saying that one statement is infallible doctrine while another proclaimed under the same circumstances is not.

Can anyone help me here?

 

[franciscomarto]

JimG:

The discussion about relative references is fine, but I don’t think it’s what the author of the book of Genesis had in mind.

I don’t think its what the author of Genesis had in mind either, or what the Church tribunal had in mind when it ruled heliocenntricism false.

… but, it is a scientific argument for the validity of the Church’s ruling.

So many people criticize the Church for her ruling condemning heliocentricism… rather than admit the Church was wrong on the issue I like to consider that in fact the Church WAS RIGHT.

Francisco

 

[masterjedi747]

ncjohn:

As to the first question–the argument that the Church does not rule on matters of science notwithstanding–the crux of the case was that the Church believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that to not believe that was contrary to scripture.

Why can’t we bring the fact that “the Church cannot rule in matters of science” into the debate? It’s the perfect answer; it disables the objections easily, and ends the debate almost instantly.

ncjohn:

While certainly not “primary matter” like the Virgin birth or the Resurrection, it certainly is faith-related if the question is promoting a belief that contradicts scripture, at least equally in my mind to the subject matter of either HV or OS, neither of which involve primary matter.

I think that HV and OS both do fall under the realm of “primary matter”…one deals with the objective morality of contraception, and the other deals with the Church’s inherent inability to ordain women to the priesthood. But science is never “primary matter”…it has nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, the Redemption, His Bride the Church, Sacraments, or objective morality. Science falls under a different category entirely. No scientific belief about how our universe works really can contradict Scripture…it can only contradict your private interpretation of Scripture. And really, I don’t think Scripture itself even claims to have authority in science…it’s all about Salvation history, and nothing else.

ncjohn:

The second question to me is the trickier one, although I have not seen anyone claim that the Church had not “always and everywhere” taught geocentrism up to that point–even to the point of “disciplining” anyone who claimed differently.

The Church has never taught scientific theory as doctrine, and never will. It doesn’t (and never can) fall under the dominion of Church authority. That’s just the way it is. Christ’s Church is here do defend, reveal, protect and preserve divine revelation…that’s all. Not scientific truth.

ncjohn:

If indeed they had, then the Pope’s statement would seem to be no different than the statements of HV and OS–just clarification of what was already infallible Catholic doctrine under the Ordinary Magisterium, and whether it meets the requirements of being *ex Cathedra * would be irrelevant as it is with the other two.

This is why I’m having a ton of trouble with the idea that “alright, we know that it meets all of the objective requirements for being ex cathedra…but it’s really not.” Since when is there a subjective element to the criteria? Either it clearly fulfills all four requirements, or it doesn’t. And if it meets the requirements, then it meets the requirements…isn’t the point that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow the proclimation to be made if it were false? Case in point: OS. That statement clearly meets all four requirements. So why can’t that just be the end of it? Do we now have to go back and re-examine every infallible proclimation that has ever made, and re-consider whether or not it was intended to be an infallible exercise of the extraordinary magisterium? Why can’t we simply look at the statement and facts objectively in order to determine that?

 

[Irene]

TheWhim,

 I've checked your post history, and therefore know that you are not a troll.  However, I was struck by the reasonable and seemingly dispassionate tone you used in the other threads you posted in. Why discard that approach? You even admitted your age at one point, claiming inexperience! How are you so confident now, about this esoteric topic that hasn't been an issue for half a millenium? Why make this a reason for leaving the Church?
                                                               
And for the record, let me state that I am only a year older than *thewhim, *but I'd never make such sensational statements about a subject I was just starting to study.

 

[Sherlock]

I think thewhim has left the building…

 

[ncjohn]

masterjedi747:

Why can’t we bring the fact that “the Church cannot rule in matters of science” into the debate? It’s the perfect answer; it disables the objections easily, and ends the debate almost instantly.

Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong here so I will not bother to address any of what followed it.

The problem is that the Church wasn’t ruling on matters of science. The Church was clearly expressing their view that, based on scripture, the Earth was the center of the universe and that this was a matter of faith. Whether you or I believe it is a matter of faith is not relevant–what is relevant is that the Church declared that it was.

Peace,

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Della:

What about gravity. Wouldn’t the center of the universe or even a solar system have to have enormous gravity to hold everything in its orbit?

Our sun is much bigger than earth and has a much stronger gravity, as does Jupiter. We are between these two huge bodies that keep us where we are in space. Isn’t that so?

If the earth were the center of the universe it would have to have tremendous gravity to hold everything in its orbit–gravity so great no living thing could possibly live on it. Aren’t I right about that?

The relationship of gravity and mass were theorized by Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which basically takes the special theory and adds gravity and acceleration.

Gravity is thought of most popularly in Newtonian terms, as an interactive force between two masses. The bigger the masses, or the closer their center-of-mass physically, the greater this “force” that acts both ways between the objects.

What we also know is that mass can be exchanged for energy, according to the famous equation E = mc^2 (or slight variations thereof) so the presence of mass and the presence of a highly concentrated field of potential energy are both valid models for the same thing. These fields actually create curvature in space, as predicted by Einstein and validated in a famous experiment during a solar eclipse. Skipping ahead a few steps, light always goes through space in a straight line so when we see light “bend” around a gravitational field (note this is NOT the same as refraction as through glass but works much the same way) such as that of our own sun in the experiement, we can either say that light went around a corner, or as Einstein found, it can be shown that the space itself was curved around that object.

When one argues that the earth is the center of the universe, one can certainly do so and one can exclude views to the contrary. The problem is there is no such thing as a common reference frame for all this. For example, if our continents are moving at several inches per year, then which point on the earth itself is considered the center? It is truly a personal point of view.

Mathematics likes to accept as “truth” whatever model is easiest or most “elegant” in some way (usually simplicity) to explain things. For example, we can explain the motion of the moon related to the sun using existing mathematics, in a way much simpler if we look at the moon as a satellite around us, but I assure you that moon pushes and pulls on us (hence the tides) every bit as much as we push and pull on it to keep it in place. The earth actually “wobbles” a bit off center because of this, but only again if you expand the point of view from earth-centric to earth-moon system-centric.

When people say that earth-centered cannot be “proven” I feel this is an extremely limited way to look at it. Certainly we have to define what we mean by “earth centered” and when we say immovable I have to ask, “by what measure” because all of these things are matters of free choice. The Church as well as individuals may say what they will and the universe behaves the same with a different story told about the mechanics with different angles of approach at explaining which leas to seemingly different observations of exactly the same phenomena.

That said, I think TheWhim is making a pretty good case that this “earth-centric” view has some specific meaning in an absolute sense, and that by not adopting it Galileo was wrong. I’m not bothered that we are focused on the fact that the Church was also “wrong” with earth-centric view.

The problem I have is I don’t see that “earth centric” is subject to an absolute answer one way or another. It is simply a way to describe things, much as an author of a book has to make decisions whether to unfold the book this way or that – for example by building each character separately or by unfolding chronilogically or whatever. Therefore the Church can define whatever she wants to as far as the point of view. Now if she goes around telling people they are stupid for holding contrary points of view, which I believe is the charge TheWhim is making, at first I’m inclined to agree.

That doesn’t mean I’m leaving the Church, though. It just means that I don’t listen to everything I am told that she says or does, and frankly, I’m not convinced that the pope is open to perfect discernment in matters of physics, but of faith. It is for this reason I can actually defend, I believe, either side of this argument.

Sorry, TheWhim, but I have not read all of the sources before posting. I’m a slow reader and I simply cannot get it all read – at least as far as I’m willing to spend time on the issue. Still, I have enjoyed the argument thus far – just when we start talking about the nature of gravity I get all excited.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TheWhim:

Before you answer, I may repeat again that I would like yu to read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” - BEFORE you answer. This would spare me much pamphlets and accusations or misinformated postings.

Again I apologize for failing to research this, but I saw that throughout the discussion it grew more repetitive, accusations passed around, and the like. One poster even suggested to another that your purpose here is to get others to leave the Church.

I offer thanks to you in bringing this up and being so persistent about it.

What is the point you would like to make, though. You have been addressed from many angles. For example, are you suggesting we should take “infallibility” with a grain of salt, or perhaps saying that we need better criteria for what is infallible?

Are you suggesting that the pope, but making a “scientific” pronouncement, went beyond his authority to rule about this? As John mentioned, what does that mean? Can he rule that in the Church all discussion will be in earth-centric point of view? If that’s the case they are not teaching that point of view, nor the associated mathematics in Catholic grade school my kids are in.

I’m not attacking you, just wondering if you were hoping to steer this thing anywhere in particular, or if you were just up for a debate to see if someone could prove you wrong? So far I’m not convinced you have been proven wrong by the arguments here, because although they may be valid by and large it looks like the ostensibly “contradictory” posts are talking right past each other.

Alan

 

[JimG]

Even if a pope might think that he had authority to rule on matters of science, he woud, of course, be wrong. And being wrong in such a case would not violate the doctrine of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

And even if he should consider geocentrism to be a matter of faith and not science, he would again be wrong in that conclusion, since geocentrism has never been a doctrine of the faith, and never will be.

 

[Writer]

bengeorge:

While I do not at all agree with the OP that somehow the Church is invalid because of his “proof”, yet I would like to remind all of you of this line in the declaration against Heliocentrism:

“That the earth is not the centre of the universe nor immovable, but that it moves, and also has diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, is at least ERROUNEOUS IN FAITH.”

The declaration wasn’t simply against Heliocentrism (which is false) but FOR Geocentrism (also false).

The OP’s claim (that the pope declared a falsehood to be infallibly true) isn’t defeated by pointing out that Heliocentrism isn’t true.

The OP, while a troll, does bring up an interesting “test case” of infallibility: It certainly does appear that the pope is declaring Geocentrism to be true and to be a matter of faith.

Just to play devil’s advocate here, what if the earth is the center of the universe? Not the center in the same way we talk about addresses and physical locations on terra firma, but something more akin to a “spiritual center”? While that’s probably pushing it, sometimes I think we create unnecessary problems for ourselves by taking things in such a literal sense. The Church may have been wrong in a physical sense, but the spirtual world around us is just as real as the physical, isn’t it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Writer:

Just to play devil’s advocate here, what if the earth is the center of the universe? Not the center in the same way we talk about addresses and physical locations on terra firma, but something more akin to a “spiritual center”? While that’s probably pushing it, sometimes I think we create unnecessary problems for ourselves by taking things in such a literal sense. The Church may have been wrong in a physical sense, but the spirtual world around us is just as real as the physical, isn’t it?

The whole deal was about Galileo’s scientific work, his work on a physical idea. The Church wasn’t dealing with “is the earth the spiritual center of the universe.” If THAT had been the question, I doubt Galileo would have gotten into trouble.

 

[Returnee]

ncjohn:

I’ve read through the bulk of this thread and find it very interesting, and quite frankly feel like a disinterested observer with no axe to grind in the infallibility debate would find good arguments on both sides of the question.

Since the “ex Cathedra” definition and specifications didn’t exist at the time of the action, the debate as to whether it does or doesn’t qualify under that definition–or whether the Pope would have meant it to–will be difficult if not impossible to ascertain. It becomes a matter of faith on whether you accept that it did or didn’t or if it needed to.

In thinking about it over the weekend though, I have come up with a different question concerning this that hopefully someone can resolve for me.

When questions are brought up about *Humanae Vitae * or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the common objection is that they were not proclaimed ex Cathedra and are therefore not infallible. The answer given to that, by many of those posting here, is that it is infallible by the Ordinary Magisterium, since it has been “always and everywhere taught”, and did not require an ex Cathedra proclaimation. And of course, if that is true (and I believe it is) then the argument over whether the Pope did or didn’t mean for OS to be *ex Cathedra * (which I believe he didn’t since both he and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, with his blessing, said he didn’t) is irrelevant. Both statements are just affirmations and clarifications of what was already infallible Catholic doctrine by virtue of its having been “always and everywhere taught”.

The dilemna this presents is that I see a distinct parallel in the case at hand. To me, whether the Pope’s statement was or wasn’t *ex Cathedra * is irrelevant to the question. The real questions in my mind are these: 1) Is this a matter of “faith and morals”? and 2) Had it been “always and everywhere taught” up to that point in time. If it meets those requirements, it would seem to me that it would have to qualify as infallible Catholic doctrine just as HV and OS do.

As to the first question–the argument that the Church does not rule on matters of science notwithstanding–the crux of the case was that the Church believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that to not believe that was contrary to scripture. While certainly not “primary matter” like the Virgin birth or the Resurrection, it certainly is faith-related if the question is promoting a belief that contradicts scripture, at least equally in my mind to the subject matter of either HV or OS, neither of which invole primary matter.

The second question to me is the trickier one, although I have not seen anyone claim that the Church had not “always and everywhere” taught geocentrism up to that point–even to the point of “disciplining” anyone who claimed differently. If indeed they had, then the Pope’s statement would seem to be no different than the statements of HV and OS–just clarification of what was already infallible Catholic doctrine under the Ordinary Magisterium, and whether it meets the requirements of being *ex Cathedra * would be irrelevant as it is with the other two.

I’m sure there must be a flaw in this (maybe there is another requirement I’m not considering), but I’m curious how to reconcile this since it makes it appear that some people might be trying to “have it both ways” in saying that one statement is infallible doctrine while another proclaimed under the same circumstances is not.

Can anyone help me here?

Forget about science, forget about what really makes a papal proclaimation ex cathedra forget all of that, for the purposes of this discussion, and whether or not the OP had a relevant point, I think it’s important to note the following from the catholic.com article I posted previously:

*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.*

This, especially the portion in bold, seems to end the matter (to me), unless there’s a question about the historical claims made in the article.

 

[ncjohn]

Returnee:

Forget about science, forget about what really makes a papal proclaimation ex cathedra forget all of that, for the purposes of this discussion, and whether or not the OP had a relevant point, I think it’s important to note the following from the catholic.com article I posted previously:

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.

This, especially the portion in bold, seems to end the matter (to me), unless there’s a question about the historical claims made in the article.

It might end the matter for you, but it doesn’t address the question of how this situation, where the Church had “always and everywhere” taught geocentrism as a matter of faith, is different from the Humanae Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis situations, where their claim to infallibility is also based on having been taught always and everywhere.

I’m not asking whether any of the bodies or persons you note can or did state anything infallible. I’m asking how the Church’s position at the time is not infallible by the Ordinary Magisterium just as HV and OS are.

Peace,

 

[Della]

ncjohn:

It might end the matter for you, but it doesn’t address the question of how this situation, where the Church had “always and everywhere” taught geocentrism as a matter of faith, is different from the Humanae Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis situations, where their claim to infallibility is also based on having been taught always and everywhere.

I’m not asking whether any of the bodies or persons you note can or did state anything infallible. I’m asking how the Church’s position at the time is not infallible by the Ordinary Magisterium just as HV and OS are.

Peace,

It was never taught or believed as an article of the faith. It was just commonly believed in the same way people commonly say the sun rises and sets, to this day, when we know it is the earth turning that causes the effect we call sunrise and sunset. There’s no need to make more of this than it is, for goodness sake!