B
BlindSheep
Guest
So can someone tell me what, specifically, are the criteria we have to look for to determine if a teaching is infallible?
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
Vatican I defined the standard by which we can determine if the Pope is speaking infallibly:
Speaking in his official role as pastor of the Universal Church
Explicitly defining a matter of faith and morals
Addressed to the entire world
This, of course, is paraphrased; nonetheless, I believe it is an accurate statement. The Pope is not said to be infallible when teaching as a “private theologian” or in an off-the-cuff remark during a homily or some letter. Not every word he speaks is infallible, even when condemning heresy. Popes can (and have) make mistakes in their biblical exegesis (see Pope St. Gregory the Great and Mary Magdalene).
Additionally, the bishops are infallible when speaking of same in union with the Pope. This is the reason that ecumenical councils are infallible once ratified by the Pope (see Hippo/Carthage and Pope Damasus), even though the Pope doesn’t define every article of every council ex cathedra.
Here’s what the First Vatican Council actually said:
source
Furthermore, if a matter is universally held by all the faithful, that, too, can be said to be infallible.
As you can see, it’s both broad and narrow. Many things can qualify, but many things are excluded.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
I would also add that you shouldn’t doubt the promises of Christ:
God Bless,
RyanL
If you have come into the Church, it is because it is the Church which Christ founded. If it is the Church which Christ founded, the gates of hell shall never prevail - such is the promise of Christ. Have faith in His promise, and rest assured there is a reason why we haven’t all left yet.
God Bless,
RyanL
J
john_doran
Guest
exactly: the oridnary Magisterium is infallible under the conditions articulated in Vatican II in Lumen Gentium:
Lumen Gentium:
similar language is used in chapter 3 of Dei Filius from Vatican I; in the first schema of Vatican I’s De ecclesia (a reference to a passage originally composed by St. Bellarmine); Vatican I’s revised schema of Constitution 2 of De ecclesia Christi; and in Pius IX’s letter Tuas Libenter. (all of these documents were footnoted in Lumen Gentium).
B
buffalo
Guest
The Galileo case was more that he was asking the Bible be changed to suit his theory. This was condemned.
It is also important to note that constant teaching was that the world was made for man and we still can consider the earth as the “center” of the universe from the theological viewpoint.
J
john_doran
Guest
just so i get this straight: is possibility that the church infallibly decreed gecentrism and geostaticism being considered on this thread based on what was said by a pope and a few cardinals in a papal condemnation?
whatever else might be uncertain, a document of that nature is certainly neither authoritative nor binding on the magisterium or the faithful.
and whether or not scriptural interpretation is subject to the rule of “only faith or morals”, papal decrees certainly are, and any promulgation by a pope concerning astronomy is outside the purview of his authority and thus of no force and effect, regardless of the particular form in which it is expressed (be it a constitution, bull, encyclical, brief, or letter).
what’s more, bulls can be revoked by the holy see; but if that’s true, they cannot be infallible, since a proposition once declared infallibly to be true cannot later be declared to be false. unless, of course, the proposition is temporally indexed (e.g. “john likes to eat cornflakes for breakfast at this point in his life”) and sibject to change. propositions about the absolute motions of the earth and sun through the heavens, though, are clearly not of that nature - that is, unless we consider it possible that the earth was once stationary and only lately has begun to move, then it simply makes no sense to suppose that an infallible proclamation by the magisterium and the bishop of rome concerning the earth’s absolute rest could later be reversed.
in other words, the very possibility that rome could declare, contra any previous declarations to the contrary, that the earth moves around the sun, entails that none of those previous promulgations were (meant to be) infallible.
whatever else might be uncertain, a document of that nature is certainly neither authoritative nor binding on the magisterium or the faithful.
and whether or not scriptural interpretation is subject to the rule of “only faith or morals”, papal decrees certainly are, and any promulgation by a pope concerning astronomy is outside the purview of his authority and thus of no force and effect, regardless of the particular form in which it is expressed (be it a constitution, bull, encyclical, brief, or letter).
what’s more, bulls can be revoked by the holy see; but if that’s true, they cannot be infallible, since a proposition once declared infallibly to be true cannot later be declared to be false. unless, of course, the proposition is temporally indexed (e.g. “john likes to eat cornflakes for breakfast at this point in his life”) and sibject to change. propositions about the absolute motions of the earth and sun through the heavens, though, are clearly not of that nature - that is, unless we consider it possible that the earth was once stationary and only lately has begun to move, then it simply makes no sense to suppose that an infallible proclamation by the magisterium and the bishop of rome concerning the earth’s absolute rest could later be reversed.
in other words, the very possibility that rome could declare, contra any previous declarations to the contrary, that the earth moves around the sun, entails that none of those previous promulgations were (meant to be) infallible.
O
Ortho
Guest
Did the Vatican depend on doctrine in the Galileo case?
O
Ortho
Guest
Are you saying the Vatican’s statements in Galileo are infallible? If they are not considered infallible, it’s a bit of a waste to try to prove they are not.
Do you contend, as the pope did, that the “doctrine of the earth’s motion and sun’s stability is conterary to Holy Scripture?”
- Is it contrary to scripture?
- If so, is scripture wrong?
- If scripture was wrong, did the pope error in relying on scripture?
O
Ortho
Guest
“It likely was not declared infallible?” Doesn’t anyone know?
O
Ortho
Guest
Aaron I.:
We are best to trust the Church about the movement of the solar system?
O
Ortho
Guest
Has the Church reaffirmed the decrees? Does it stand by them today?
O
Ortho
Guest
Prefer the company of these guys?
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio
O
Ortho
Guest
I don’t think the opinion issued by the Church court says that.
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
O
Ortho
Guest
john doran:
“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
In Galileo the Vatican talked about more than astronomy.
“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
T
trth_skr
Guest
They may not be infallible. I am not trying to prove they are not; though I think they may not be. Still they are pretty certain.
Yes.
Yes. according to the fathers and three popes.
No.
Scripture is not wrong; therfor the popes were not wrong.
See these links:
Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
- Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
- Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
- Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
- Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
These guys stood up for Scriptures and did not try attacking Papal infallibility.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
O
Ortho
Guest
Does anyone know if the statements are infallible? What good is infallibility if there is uncertainty about the infallibl;e status of particular statements?
Are you a geocentrist?
O
Ortho
Guest
Do you agree with them? Do you stand with them?
They said the following. Do you agree with them?
“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Whoever responded to me your link did not work. It was redirected elsewhere.
J
john_doran
Guest
you can call it whatever you want - it’s making a claim about an astronomical phenomenon.
you surely can’t be suggesting that the form of the sentence you’ve quoted from the papl condemnation has some magic to it, and that it can just turn scientific claims into faith-claims by linguistic fiat. consider the following:
The proposition that electricity and magnetism are manifestations of one force, the electromagnetic force, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."
if the current pope were to say such a thing, do you think that he’d be saying something not about science, but about faith? if so, then it seems that the pope can make infallible pronouncements about absolutely anything at all, and the whole “faith or morals” thing becomes meaningless criterion.
that’s certainly a recondite theology.
- Status