Personal interpretation

[grannymh]

Now granny, that is a good question, worthy of a reply it is so good.

May I compliment you on your reply.

In addition your reply raises questions regarding specifics which need to be discussed.

It is my opinion that one can separate an act of a pope in a personal capacity

Do you have examples of a pope acting in a personal capacity?

and when he is acting as the Church.

And how does the “Church” act.

Depending on how you and other posters respond, I will continue my reply. Eventually, we can work back to the original question "Can any Pope personally interpret Holy Scripture?

Here is the rest of Cassini’s post.

The first is not binding on the faithful, and one that could be wrong. The second interpretation, if done in his capacity as Pope teaching the truth, is binding and infallible under the ordinary magisterium.

But how do we know which way the Pope is reading the Scriptures? Well any Pope teaching does so, either by his extraordinary magisterium, or ordinary magisterium, and both mustr be defined and declared as binding on the faithful. A personal imterpretation of a Pope can be seen as that, one published in a book, at a lecture, or before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for example.

Having read the passages on the infallibility of a pope at Vatican I (1969-70) about 50 times, these are the conclusions I have come to.

 

[fhansen]

Do you have examples of a pope acting in a personal capacity?

Pope Benedicts’ book, “Jesus of Nazareth”, is an example of a pope acting in a personal capacity, as he maintains.

Having read the passages on the infallibility of a pope at Vatican I (1969-70) about 50 times, these are the conclusions I have come to.

Casini, this may be a naive question, but, having re-read the ex Cathedra declaration at the end of Vat I on infallibility, I’m wondering how you see the Galileo case as one involving faith and morals? IOW, how does the relative rotation of planets have anything to do with the salvation of man?

Also, where does Vat II ridicule popes?

 

[cassini]

Okay we ask the question. Is the pope acting in his capacity of Pope or as Prefect for the Congregation of the Index. The pope, as you should know wears many hats and does not always act as Chief Shepherd so Cardinal Bellarmine’s remark means nothing. Also we ask the question Is the Pope acting as Pope to teach the entire Church or is the Pope acting as a judge in a matter involving one individual? Does it meet the criteria of an infallible statement? NO!

One more thing you are very selective of that which you quote. I googled your source, *CATHOLIC DICTIONARY1954 * and Lo and behold I found this tidbit under the Galileo affair:

"No question of papal infallibility was involved. In Galileo’s case the Church defined nothing and uttered no doctrine. It made a disciplinary prohibition to protect the faithful from the disturbing effect of a then unproved hypothesis. St. Robert Bellarmine, who was involved in the Galileo affair, wrote that if a real proof were found that the sun was fixed and did not revolve around the earth, “it would be necessary to acknowledge that the passages in Scripture which appear to contradict this fact have been misunderstood.”

Here is the link

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33691

In addition I found this tidbit:

“…In answer to those who claim that the condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition shows that the Church was opposed to the progress of science, it must be understood that neither Paul III nor Urban VIII condemned his teachings ex cathedra, and that the Inquisition is powerless to make a dogmatic decree. The trial of 1615 condemned the spread of Copernican propaganda as anti-scriptural, while the trial of 1633 was concerned with Galileo’s breach of contract in refusing to abide by his promise made during the first trial.”

Here is the link:

saints.sqpn.com/ncd01130.htm

Galileo was an impetuous man in addition to being bull headed and antagonistic. He angered the academic intelligentia of his day. The difference between Galileo and Copernicus was that Cepernicus knew he could not prove his theory and only offered it as a theory. Galileo went further and even though he, like Copernicus, did not have the scientific proof he needed , Galileo did not let that stop him from claiming it was fact. As a result a debate was arranged for him with academics. Galileo was doing well until hit with the scripture from Job about the sun standing still. Galileo response was tragic. He declared that the scriptures must be wrong. Of course we know today that the sun only appearred to stop; it was the earth that stood still. Apparently Galileo had not thought of that and his impetuousness resulted in his tragic response.

ANyway any claim of infallibility in the whole matter is ludicrous.

Thank you Incaneer, that’s more like it, this is proper debate, not the one-liners one usually gets.

First let us consider the question of infallibility. Never in the history of the Church has the Church said ‘believe this, it is infallible.’ Nor has the Church said ‘This is not infallible.’ The Church never qualifies its teaching.

At Vatican I the teaching on infallibility was dogmatised. It gave the conditions under which a definition of a pope is infallible. From this teaching Catholics can tell which teachings of the Church up to then are infallible and which are not. In other words, the Church stands back and assumes Catholics know when a teaching must be believed without chance of error. If the Church says it, it is true, always, end of story.

The Galileo case was about Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. After Trent warned against personal interpretations that contradicted those of the Fathers and the Church, and forbid such personal interpretations, Galileo challenged this hermeneutics in regard to questions of factual matters in the Bible and said the Fathers got their exegesis wrong in regard to geocentrism. Bellarmine pointed out ’ 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.’ So, regardless of the subject matter, factual statements of the Bible held by the Fathers are relevations and cannot be challenged.

Pope Paul V issued the 1616 decree that defined and declared a contradition of such a revealed fact as formal heresy. A heresy is a contradiction of a dogma. What Dogma? Something revealed in Scriptures held by all the Fathers. and please do not tell us that the churchmen didn’t know what they were doing. These were the same churchmen fighting Protestantism and its multiple heresies. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII ordered the following on behalf of the Church;

 “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures ... and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture"

Thus The Church of 1633 “said, pronounced, judged, and declared” the 1616 decree as IMMUTABLE. There is a deposite of theology and teaching that qualifies the Church’s decision on the matter that could be gone into, but the Church explained itself enough.

Continued:

 

[cassini]

Now why would anybody want to try to deny the Church its teaching? Well history shows that the first apologists were those philosophers, and some clergymen, who saw the decree as ill judged given they thought Galileo did enough to show the decree was probably wrong. Thus the great debate began, was the decree really of the Church to be believed without question, or was it not properly declared leaving the door open for change. Mostly the above were opinions of men who had NO ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH SHOWING THERE WAS NO DOUBT THE DECREE WAS PAPAL AND OF THE CHURCH.

The Copernicans then gathered opinions from doubters and used them, while others such a Andrew White who recorded the following:

When Gassendi attempted to raise the point that the decision against Galileo was not sanctioned by the Church as such, an eminent theological authority, Father Lecazre, rector of the College of Dijon, publicly contradicted him, and declared that it " was the not certain cardinals but the supreme authority of the Church." When Descartes and others attempted to raise the question they were treated with contempt. Father Castelli,… in his letter to papal authorities said it was made by the Church. Cardinal Querengthi, in his letters; ambassador Guicciardini in his dispatches; Polacco in his refutation; the historian Viviani, in his biography of Galileo - all written under Church inspection and approval at the time, said it was a Church decree.

The second assault on the authority of the decree came after Newton and Bradley were understood to have proven Galileo correct. Catholics - true to their faith we can concede - deducted that because the Church cannot be wrong - and in this case the subject matter was wrong - then it could not have been the Church.
And so the infamous series of denials began. First again was the suggestion the pope had nothing to do with the decrees. It was not a matter of heresy, but contumacy. a dozen other excuses followed all thrown out when the records were opened up to scholars.
The last straw was to deny the decree’s infallibility and that should make the nightmare go away.
But up came a Fr Roberts in 1870 and 1885 with an essay showing the decree had all the authority of a pope teaching, giving examples where popes had ruled decrees of the Holy Office were to be held as definitive, unchanging and to be held absolutely by the Church.

For Catholics this was a no, no, even if true. It would mean the ‘gates of hell had prevailed’ the Church had ruled in error. So, on went the idea that if one denies the decree’s infallibility that somehow makes it normal for the Church to make false heresies and condemn Galileo without harming the credibility of the teaching Church.

So, that is why Inkasneer, I can find the truth in one Catholic encyclopaedia and you another contrary truth in another Catholic encyclopaedia. Any atheist or Protestant looking on will only be confirmed in their opinion that the Church really thinks it can have its cake and eat it.

The only solution is to have faith in Catholic infallibility and not in science. The 1616 decree was papal, defining heresy, and thus has to be infallible and immutable. So when science now admits relativity prevails, and that confirmation of heliocentrism is impossible, remember St Robert Bellarmine’s words:

‘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 give glory to God for such wisdom that in spite of 200 years of philosophers telling the world H is proven, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine had the truth all along in that we now know the heresy of Galileo was never demonstrated or likely to be demonstrated.

 

[cassini]

May I compliment you on your reply.

In addition your reply raises questions regarding specifics which need to be discussed.

Do you have examples of a pope acting in a personal capacity?

And how does the “Church” act.

Depending on how you and other posters respond, I will continue my reply. Eventually, we can work back to the original question "Can any Pope personally interpret Holy Scripture?
.

The question was regarding the principle of a pope acting in a personal capacity. The answer to this is yes he can, in private and in public. As for examples, not necessary to prove the principle, I offer any pope who reads the Scriptures ‘heliocentrically’ be it in private or at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and printed up in Catholic newspapers has no infallible authority merely a personal opinion…

The Church acts when according to Vatican I:

The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
sometimes by
summoning ecumenical councils or
consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
special synods, sometimes by
taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, eg, THE HOLY OFFICE]
defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
sacred scripture and
the apostolic traditions.

Finally, if a pope ‘personally interprets the Scripture,’ with no help, and defines this interpretation to be the truth as revealed, and does so using his excathedra perogative, then Catholics must adhere to that ‘personal interpretation.’

 

[grannymh]

The question was regarding the principle of a pope acting in a personal capacity. The answer to this is yes he can, in private and in public. As for examples, not necessary to prove the principle, I offer any pope who reads the Scriptures ‘heliocentrically’ be it in private or at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and printed up in Catholic newspapers has no infallible authority merely a personal opinion…

The Church acts when according to Vatican I:

The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
sometimes by
summoning ecumenical councils or
consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
special synods, sometimes by
taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, eg, THE HOLY OFFICE]
defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
sacred scripture and
the apostolic traditions.

Finally, if a pope ‘personally interprets the Scripture,’ with no help, and defines this interpretation to be the truth as revealed, and does so using his excathedra perogative, then Catholics must adhere to that ‘personal interpretation.’

Thus, there are two separate entities: 1. Holy Scripture and 2. Actually defined Divine Revelation which is knonwn as Catholic Dogma.

 

[inkaneer]

Is it possible that the reason for this is because not all people who consider themselves Catholics understand (correctly interpret) certain RCC teachings? It is my observation that the RCC has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.

One does not convert to Catholicism in one altar call as in sola scriptura denominations. In the early church those wishing to convert were called catechumens and underwent a fairly long initiation period in which they learned the faith before they were baptized. They were only allowed to attend the first part of the Divine Liturgy and had to leave after the readings and homily. Today converts to the faith go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults [RCIA] classes. In fact, it is my understanding that some of the earlier material written by Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine are still used today.

 

[cassini]

Casini, this may be a naive question, but, having re-read the ex Cathedra declaration at the end of Vat I on infallibility, I’m wondering how you see the Galileo case as one involving faith and morals? IOW, how does the relative rotation of planets have anything to do with the salvation of man?

Also, where does Vat II ridicule popes?

Not naive fhansen, an obvious question in the light of the apologist position.At no time in the history of the Galileo case did anyone suggest the Galileo case was not one of faith. I cannot find that idea anywhere in hundreds of books, areticles, essays etc., I have read. The reason for this is because the matter was one of hermeneutics, how the Scriptures are to be understood according to the Church. Note the 1616 decree gives the reason for heresy: "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.” Now that concerns a faith matter, irrespective of the scientific subject involved.
Bellarmine writes:

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. 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.’

Now the only place I found this matter addressed in detail is in Professor Marcella Pera’s essay: The God of theologians and the god of astronomers in the book The Cambridge Companion to Galileo 1998. In this marvellous essay Professor Pera examines in detail Galileo’s approach to hermeneutics . He discusses the matter under the following headings:
Thesis 1: If H is not demonstrable then accept Scripture (G) and reject H.
Thesis 2: If H is demonstrable and demonstrated then accept H and reject G.
Thesis 3: If H is demonstrable but not demonstrated then keep G and pursue H as a hypothesis
Thesis 4: All factual statements in Scripture are revisable in the light of Science.
Thesis 5 certain factual statements in Scripture are not revisable in the light of science.
Pera demonstrates thesis 5 is proven true if we are to adhere to the truism ‘two truths cannot contradict one another.’

It was a matter of proper Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics for the Church, with no obligation on the Church to prove anything of science.

As for Vatican II:

‘(36) We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they [who opposed Galileo] have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ — Gaudium et spes.

 

[Whiggamore]

Casini, this may be a naive question, but, having re-read the ex Cathedra declaration at the end of Vat I on infallibility, I’m wondering how you see the Galileo case as one involving faith and morals? IOW, how does the relative rotation of planets have anything to do with the salvation of man?

fhansen, I don’t know about the Galileo case, but if a Pope says something like “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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 … so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,” would you not accept it? Would you not just assume that even though you might categorize the subject matter as not concerning “faith and morals” that it indeed does by virtue of the Pope’s words?

And cassini, you make a convincing case.

 

[grannymh]

**Ex Cathedra
****newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm **

Explanation of papal infallibility
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

These two links are too long to put in a post. Nonetheless, they are worth reading slowly.

 

[cassini]

Thus, there are two separate entities: 1. Holy Scripture and 2. Actually defined Divine Revelation which is knonwn as Catholic Dogma.

Yes, there are reams of Scripture, protected as having no error at all in them, with no proclaimed interpretation to be adhered to by Catholics. There are however encyclicals advising Catholics HOW to read Scripture in a Catholic way. These are only advisary, not containing any specific interpretations. Thus the faithful can read Scripture and obtain inspiration and peace from its pages.

Passages and sentences of Scripture on which proclaimed dogmas and doctrines are based cannot be interpreted differently to the Church. There are hundreds of these as reading one’s daily missal will demonstrate.

 

[grannymh]

fhansen, I don’t know about the Galileo case, but if a Pope says something like “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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 … so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,” would you not accept it? Would you not just assume that even though you might categorize the subject matter as not concerning “faith and morals” that it indeed does by virtue of the Pope’s words?

And cassini, you make a convincing case.

The case would be convincing only if such a dogma was presented.

 

[Whiggamore]

grannymh, neither of those links defines the ambiguous category of doctrines “faith and morals”. I see no reason why the place of the Earth in relation to the rest of Creation, the age of the Earth, or any other fact could not concern faith or morals. If the color of a robe can, then these could too.

 

[grannymh]

Finally, if a pope ‘personally interprets the Scripture,’ with no help, and defines this interpretation to be the truth as revealed, and does so using his excathedra perogative, then Catholics must adhere to that ‘personal interpretation.’

So as not to confuse readers, there are two links in post 146 which explain what is really, really involved in Ex Catherdra as currently used by Vatican 1

 

[inkaneer]

Thank you Incaneer, that’s more like it, this is proper debate, not the one-liners one usually gets.

First let us consider the question of infallibility. Never in the history of the Church has the Church said ‘believe this, it is infallible.’ Nor has the Church said ‘This is not infallible.’ The Church never qualifies its teaching.

At Vatican I the teaching on infallibility was dogmatised. It gave the conditions under which a definition of a pope is infallible. From this teaching Catholics can tell which teachings of the Church up to then are infallible and which are not. In other words, the Church stands back and assumes Catholics know when a teaching must be believed without chance of error. If the Church says it, it is true, always, end of story.

The Galileo case was about Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. After Trent warned against personal interpretations that contradicted those of the Fathers and the Church, and forbid such personal interpretations, Galileo challenged this hermeneutics in regard to questions of factual matters in the Bible and said the Fathers got their exegesis wrong in regard to geocentrism. Bellarmine pointed out ’ 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.’ So, regardless of the subject matter, factual statements of the Bible held by the Fathers are relevations and cannot be challenged.

I disagree. The Galileo case was about Galileo’s claim that the scriptures, specifically Joshua 10:13, was wrong. It was Galileo who was on trial not Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. If Galileo had said that Johua 10:13 was misunderstood or misinterpreted he would not be on trial for heresy but he didn’t. He said the scriptures were wrong and consequently they were not inerrant. That was heresy. And that was what got Galileo in deep doo doo. Good thing he was Catholic as the protestants would have burned him at the stake. As for your claim that “…factual statements of the Bible held by the Fathers are relevations and cannot be challenged.” that is pure poppycock. Even the Great Augustine has been challenged not to mention Tertullian and Origen. You are trying to wrap the Fathers in a mantle of infallibility which the Church has denied they have. The Fathers and their teachings are not infallible. Their value to us is in the historical witness they provide as testimony that this is the faith, the doctrines they believed in their time, is still the same today.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, neither of those links defines the ambiguous category of doctrines “faith and morals”. I see no reason why the place of the Earth in relation to the rest of Creation, the age of the Earth, or any other fact could not concern faith or morals. If the color of a robe can, then these could too.

What one needs to do is to click the links for faith and morals which appear in a different color in the link text for Ex Cathedra.

The link for Explanation of Papal Infallibility is to the general category on Infallibility.
Scroll down to this section to find faith and morals which appear in a different color.

However, if one is truly interested in the category of faith and morals, my suggestion is to keep scrolling down to section V. What Teaching is Infallible?

 

[inkaneer]

fhansen, I don’t know about the Galileo case, but if a Pope says something like “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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 … so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,” would you not accept it? Would you not just assume that even though you might categorize the subject matter as not concerning “faith and morals” that it indeed does by virtue of the Pope’s words?

And cassini, you make a convincing case.

No. It doesn’t matter what words are used. In fact, even if a pope claimed he was making an infallible statement it would still depend on whether the criteria for infallibility was met and not wheter the pope said it was infallible. In fact if the pope said:

"“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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 IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,”

I would bet that it would not rain the next day. WHY? because the Pope is not infallible in matters of meteorology and it does not matter one twit what formula or words his meteorological statement was couched in.

 

[PRmerger]

First let us consider the question of infallibility. Never in the history of the Church has the Church said ‘believe this, it is infallible.’ Nor has the Church said ‘This is not infallible.’ The Church never qualifies its teaching

And why should it?

If you are a parent, do you qualify each of your pronouncements to your children?

And, as a child, would you not consider yourself rather cheeky asking your parents, “Well, Father, with what degree of certainty are you proclaiming that I cannot have this chocolate bar before dinner?”

 

[grannymh]

Information for Readers

In the posts regarding Scripture interpretation during the time of Galileo, it is important to understand how the Catholic Church defines and proclaims dogmas.

The first thing to be clarified is that the way the Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation is by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Gathering in a Church Council usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

In addition, Church Councils deal with the general norms or rules for good order in the visible society of the Church. These are referred to as “cannon law” and are not the same as theological dogmas.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focuses on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love. Since God is calling us, the Catholic leadership also focuses on what we must choose to do in order to remain in God’s friendship. For example. In relationship to salvation, the Catholic leadership will focus on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments as well as on moral actions.

Because the Catholic focus is on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searches the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation.

The Church Fathers, being brilliant men, also sought knowledge about the universe. While knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, it was not deemed necessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God created the universe does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science. It depends on Genesis 1:1

Consequently, the Catholic Church does not have properly defined theological dogmas regarding the position of any individual material/physical planet.

Catholicism does not depend on the affirmation of geocentrism or heliocentrism. To even imply that the position of one particular material/physical planet is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith is promoting false information.

One certainly may present the science of geocentrism as worthy of belief.
But one should not mislead readers about what is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[PRmerger]

Go to my profile PR and you will see I have contributed to many subjects other than the Galileo case.

And yet, curiously, you keep posting the same cut/paste on multiple threads, despite it being addressed *ad nauseum.
*

Dogggg’s thread is titled Personal interpretation a subject that is at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread Inerrancy v. Infallibility is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread Galileo is the Galileo case. Another thread Geocentrism: why doesn’t it just die and be done with? is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread : Religion and Science is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. That is why I contribute to these subjects.

I think my point has been made quite trenchantly by the above.

Not a single poster has addressed your question to your satisfaction?

Inside the Church the blind lead the blind as Christ warned.

This is getting quite close to contempt for Catholicism, cassini, which is not allowed here on the CAFs.

This is a reminder that you are on a Catholic forum and must speak with respect about our leaders.