Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[humble_in_doubt]

Actually, what’s pretty convenient (for you) is the absence of documented evidence of where The Church dealt with Galileo’s science issue under the premise of “infallibility”. Where is infallibility linked directly to this issue? I will yield to you, and research the issue in depth myself, if you will just provide a specific source within which it is revealed that The Church armed itself formally and officially with the charism of infallibility in this issue revolving around Galileo (pun intended)…or any issue outside of FAITH and MORALS. It might also help you to understand that infallibility is linked to dogmatic principles. IOW, official teachings of the Church. Another reason why Galileo’s issue would not be included.

Here’s an excerpt from an article that sums up my feelings on this issue pretty well:

*None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode. Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not “ex cathedra” in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that “his ‘proof’ did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today”!

At any rate, the pope’s condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend (link here).*

The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it as a decree of the congregation, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. Of course the doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t even dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council of 1870 (so to juxtapose the procedures required to invoke infallibility as promulgated by that council unto the Galileo affair is obviously fallacious).

 

[Peter_J]

Here’s an excerpt from an article that sums up my feelings on this issue pretty well:

*None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode. Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not “ex cathedra” in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that “his ‘proof’ did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today”!

At any rate, the pope’s condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend (link here*).

The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it as a decree of the congregation, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. Of course the doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t even dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council of 1870 (so to juxtapose the procedures required to invoke infallibility as promulgated by that council unto the Galileo affair is obviously fallacious).

HID,

Throughout Church history, we find a struggle against those in error.

Moreover, we find over and over that “those in error” can be a diverse group: One has only to consider the Christological controversies in the 5th century. Those who believed that Christ was 2 persons were in error, and on the other hand those who believe that he had only 1 nature were also in error. (Granted, I’m oversimplifying a little with respect to the term “nature”.)

We see this once again with respect to the Inquisition: some people who were in error were tried by the Inquisition, some people who were in error were part of the Inquisition. In particular, the idea that it’s a heresy to say “the earth revolves around the sun” is doubly erroneous; first because “the earth revolves around the sun” is a true statement; and second because it isn’t a matter of faith or morals, and hence wouldn’t be heretical even if it was false.

I think it provides a good lesson for us all in humility, and in not making rash judgments about who is right and who is wrong.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

HID,

Throughout Church history, we find a struggle against those in error.

Moreover, we find over and over that “those in error” can be a diverse group: One has only to consider the Christological controversies in the 5th century. Those who believed that Christ was 2 persons were in error, and on the other hand those who believe that he had only 1 nature were also in error. (Granted, I’m oversimplifying a little with respect to the term “nature”.)

We see this once again with respect to the Inquisition: some people who were in error were tried by the Inquisition, some people who were in error were part of the Inquisition. In particular, the idea that it’s a heresy to say “the earth revolves around the sun” is doubly erroneous; first because “the earth revolves around the sun” is a true statement; and second because it isn’t a matter of faith or morals, and hence wouldn’t be heretical even if it was false.

I think it provides a good lesson for us all in humility, and in not making rash judgments about who is right and who is wrong.

cool … I say Nietzsche was right

 

[SteveGC]

Here’s an excerpt from an article that sums up my feelings on this issue pretty well:

*None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode. Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not “ex cathedra” in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that “his ‘proof’ did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today”!

At any rate, the pope’s condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend (link here*).

The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it as a decree of the congregation, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. Of course the doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t even dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council of 1870 (so to juxtapose the procedures required to invoke infallibility as promulgated by that council unto the Galileo affair is obviously fallacious).

An article from the CRI is not what I had in mind when I asked you for some valid source. I sorta meant something from within The Church. Dr. Geisler, who I don’t really have a major problem with, is show-casing some typical anti-Catholic rhetoric in this article - whether he intends to or not, I do not know. Nevertheless, the argument against Petrine primacy has been refuted over and over. The Honorius tactic is well-worn, and has been refuted. And then there’s Galileo.

 

[SteveGC]

In case you didn’t care to read the entire Galileo article, I’ll put the relevant part here:

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.

 

[Memaw]

This is what you said:

This is what I said:

There is a difference between our word definitions. You said that infallibility does not mean one cannot err. I say that infallibility does means that the Pope cannot err. These are opposites and mine is correct. I know that you know the correct definition, but you wrote it down incorrectly and I was correcting your goof-up so others would not be confused.

I agree with you that the the Pope’s infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra statements.

SHW,
Infallibility does NOT mean that ‘one’ cannot error. The pope could error or sin in his personal life or opinions. The only time he is Infallible is when he is acting as Pope for the whole Church. Infallibility belongs to the Church and whoever is Pope when he teaches in the name of the Church. Many protestants think we believe the Pope is infallible all the time. Also, Impeccability applies to Jesus Christ only, not to anyone else. I don’t believe I am the one who ‘goofed up’. Read my statement over again, that is what I said. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PRmerger]

humble, you seem like an educated man. Certainly you know, then, that you must provide a source for your claims.

Else your credibility is doubted. Again.

You proclaimed:

You might be interested to know the most secular nations in the world are rated the “happiest”!

How did they quantify this “happiness”? What is your source for this claim?

And, you asserted:

humble_in_doubt:

she claims infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation does she not?

Where does she claim this?

 

[Memaw]

I disagree. Jesus prayed that they would “all be one.” His prayer will be answered before He returns at His Second Coming because this is God’s will.

That is God’s Will but man is famous for NOT doing God’s will. Jesus told us to ‘be prepared’ for we do not know when HE will come the Second Time. Matt. 24:44-51. Also, Matt 25: 1-13. We can’t count on some miraculous mass conversion at the last minute. God Bless, Memaw

 

[humble_in_doubt]

humble, you seem like an educated man. Certainly you know, then, that you must provide a source for your claims.

Else your credibility is doubted. Again.

You proclaimed:

How did they quantify this “happiness”? What is your source for this claim?

study by Forbes released in May (link here).

The top countries on the list are all very secular countries (where belief in a god, at least in the form Christians view him in, is by far a minority view).

As for scriptural interpretation … protestants will be delighted to learn that Rome has relinquished control over interpretation of scripture

 

[humble_in_doubt]

An article from the CRI is not what I had in mind when I asked you for some valid source. I sorta meant something from within The Church. Dr. Geisler, who I don’t really have a major problem with, is show-casing some typical anti-Catholic rhetoric in this article - whether he intends to or not, I do not know. Nevertheless, the argument against Petrine primacy has been refuted over and over. The Honorius tactic is well-worn, and has been refuted. And then there’s Galileo.

why would I possibly view something from “within the church” as a “valid source”? It’s like relying on the defendant for proof of his guilt (I mean that in a strict logical sense of course).

 

[Worthy5]

why would I possibly view something from “within the church” as a “valid source”? It’s like relying on the defendant for proof of his guilt (I mean that in a strict logical sense of course).

So HID are you now saying that a defendant could not present evidence on his behalf in his own trial under your " logic" ?

 

[PRmerger]

As for scriptural interpretation … protestants will be delighted to learn that Rome has relinquished control over interpretation of scripture

Ah, so you could not find any Magisterial document that claims that the CC claims infallibility when it comes to Scriptural interpretation, then? Nothing that contradicts the Magisterial documentation that I provided? Interesting, indeed!

Thanks for the source for your claim, finally, about secular nations being the happiest. What do you say about the statistic I provided that secular nations are also the most despondent?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

So HID are you now saying that a defendant could not present evidence on his behalf in his own trial under your " logic" ?

it depends on what you define as evidence. If it’s a self-created post-hoc document or finding averring his innocence, no it likely would NOT be admissible. If, however, the defendant finds a witness, procures DNA data, or other relevant sources of evidence, obviously it would be admissible (but of course that’s not what we’re talking about here is it).

 

[Worthy5]

it depends on what you define as evidence. If it’s a self-created post-hoc document or finding averring his innocence, no it likely would NOT be admissible. If, however, the defendant finds a witness, procures DNA data, or other relevant sources of evidence, obviously it would be admissible (but of course that’s not what we’re talking about here is it).

Well you made the statement and you did not define the type of evidence but you did finally respond to one of my post. Thanks

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Ah, so you could not find any Magisterial document that claims that the CC claims infallibility when it comes to Scriptural interpretation, then? Nothing that contradicts the Magisterial documentation that I provided? Interesting, indeed!

Thanks for the source for your claim, finally, about secular nations being the happiest. What do you say about the statistic I provided that secular nations are also the most despondent?

I love the semantics. The CC claims it’s right regarding scripture and protestants are wrong (at least in the many areas there are disagreement, like baptism for instance, which arguably isn’t an issue pertaining to faith and morals).

If you want to say baptism does pertain to faith, then why isn’t everything the CC alleges pertaining to its understanding of scripture a matter of faith? Isn’t scripture generally a matter of faith?

I don’t believe the supernatural or most of the historical claims of scripture, you do, and you do so as a matter of faith (since there’s obviously no independent empirical evidence showing that any of the supernatural claims of the bible ever really happened, besides scant mention of Christians by a few secular sources that do not verify any of the supernatural claims of the bible). So what is a matter of faith and morals?

The definition changes every time the CC is proven wrong; and herein lies my problem with the churches credibility on this issue. Indeed it wasn’t until Vatican I (in the 19th century) that it dogmatically defined the doctrine; and it wasn’t until recently (Pope John Paul II) that the church sort of admitted error with regard to the Galileo affair.

 

[PRmerger]

I love the semantics. The CC claims it’s right regarding scripture and protestants are wrong (at least in the many areas there are disagreement, like baptism for instance, which arguably isn’t an issue pertaining to faith and morals).

If you want to say baptism does pertain to faith, then why isn’t everything the CC alleges pertaining to its understanding of scripture a matter of faith? Isn’t scripture generally a matter of faith?

I don’t believe the supernatural or most of the historical claims of scripture, you do, and you do so as a matter of faith (since there’s obviously no independent empirical evidence showing that any of the supernatural claims of the bible ever really happened, besides scant mention of Christians by a few secular sources that do not verify any of the supernatural claims of the bible). So what is a matter of faith and morals?

The definition changes every time the CC is proven wrong; and herein lies my problem with the churches credibility on this issue. Indeed it wasn’t until Vatican I (in the 19th century) that it dogmatically defined the doctrine; and it wasn’t until recently (Pope John Paul II) that the church sort of admitted error with regard to the Galileo affair.

What??

Still no contradictory document from the Magisterial document I provided?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

1Beleever: I firmly believe that you are correct in delineating the difference between Catholics who claim many things, including that their leader, because he is their leader and claims that he and his church have the right, and really just because they claim it, not because God claimed it (not in Scripture in any case), that he can make whatever changes to the Torah that Jesus Christ defended, minus–even in His time on earth–the Temple services, priesthood, and animal sacrificial system, that he (the pope) wants to.

You will often notice that they turn to Scripture (which they say they do not fully believe in because, somehow it is “incomplete” (by whose reconning?) to defend this position they hold about the pope, but quickly turn to “Scripture and Tradition” as though the two were somenow compatible. That is the real issue here. The leaders of the early Christian part of the Jewish faith (the REAL Jewish faith after Christ’s crucifixion and ascension), when faced with extermination along with the Jews by the Roman pagans, when both of them kept the holy times given not by Jews, but by God, Himself, to the ethnic people known as “Jews,” began making changes so that they could stop the horrible bloodletting by the pagans of Rome.

That is recorded history. I’m sure now I, and perhaps you, will be rebutted with Peter was the first pope, and etc… The Catholic Church that came along with Constantine in the 4th century, AD. when all the changes were put into religious law, and the idealized version of Christianity became,. guess what: the state religion, that is what the fuss is really all about. They were the first protestants who protested the ongoing practice of many Christians in following the written Torah, but without the sacrificial system, and all the thousands of needless regulations added by the rabbi’s who had made many changes in the written Torah, and said it came from God. Jesus, Himself, told them they were worshipping Him in vain. He said that to the rabbi’s whose spiritual ancestors He had given the written Torah, the “Law of Moses,” His Law of Love, to.

 

[SHW]

SHW,
Infallibility does NOT mean that ‘one’ cannot error. The pope could error or sin in his personal life or opinions. The only time he is Infallible is when he is acting as Pope for the whole Church. Infallibility belongs to the Church and whoever is Pope when he teaches in the name of the Church. Many protestants think we believe the Pope is infallible all the time. Also, Impeccability applies to Jesus Christ only, not to anyone else.

Sorry, but I did not “get” how you were explaining it in the first post. We each have a different “way” to explain these topics and here is mine:

The Church is always infallible (without error) in its teachings regarding faith and morals.

According to the dictionary:

Infallibility means cannot err or without error.

The Pope, however, is only infallible in matters regarding faith and morals. He is not infallible in regard to anything else. And specific conditions must be met before his teachings on faith and morals are determined to be infallible.

Definition: Infallible: incapable of error; never wrong

Definition: Impeccable: incapable of wrongdoing

Definition: Inerrant: not erring; making no mistakes; infallible

The Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters concerning faith and morals when it is his intent to teach infallibly and the conditions for infallibility are met. He is not infallible in his personal opinions about anything.

The Pope is not impeccable. He can and does sin personal sins. Jesus and Mary are the only two persons with human natures who have never sinned either with original sin or with personal sins. All other persons have original sin on their souls and they are also all capable of sinning personal sins using their free wills.

The Bible is inerrant (not erring) regarding faith and morals. Details regarding Biblical Geography and Science, etc. are not necessarily inerrant.

 

[PRmerger]

You will often notice that they turn to Scripture (which they say they do not fully believe in because, somehow it is “incomplete” (by whose reconning?)

Ron, I believe you misunderstand the CC’s teaching on Scripture. Who told you that we do not fully believe in Scripture? We venerate the Scriptures. Indeed, we gave you the Scriptures!

Here’s some of what the CC has to say about Scripture: For this reason, **the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. **She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68 (CCC 103-104)

 

[SHW]

That is God’s Will but man is famous for NOT doing God’s will. Jesus told us to ‘be prepared’ for we do not know when HE will come the Second Time. Matt. 24:44-51. Also, Matt 25: 1-13. We can’t count on some miraculous mass conversion at the last minute. God Bless, Memaw

It is true that we do not know when Jesus will return. I do not expect a mass conversion at the last minute. I expect it after the great chastisement which is prophesied in which 3/4 of the earth’s population dies during the war and the three days of darkness.

Those who remain will become Catholics except for the Jews who will convert when Enoch and Elias return to preach and witness to the Jews when Antichrist is here. There will be a time period of peace after the chastisement and this will last until the Antichrist is born. After he is born, then most people living will become corrupt and follow the Antichrist except for the elect and the Jews who convert to Catholicism due to Enoch and Elijah’s preaching. Jesus destroys Antichrist and then He returns shortly thereafter.

Jesus always prays for His Father’s will to be done. His Father and Jesus are one. Jesus prays that “we” all will be one. This prayer will be answered, I think, before Jesus returns.