J
john_doran
Guest
but the (ordinary) magisterium is only infallible with regard to faith and morals.
- Status
J
john_doran
Guest
i think we’re going round in circles here…
we only know what a scriptural passage means with certainty if the church (i.e. pope, magisterium, tradition) infallibly proclaims the certain meaning.
but the church only makes such proclamations regarding faith and morals.
so, when determining if the church has made an infallible proclamation, the proclamation needs at least to concern a matter of faith or morals.
has the church (read: the unanimous body of patristic writers) made an infallible proclamation concerning the meaning of the facially geocentric biblical passages?
perhaps, but only if geocentrism is a matter of faith.
is it? it seems hard to believe that it is, and that the putative unanimity of the fathers on the subject - rather than being a declaration (e.g. it is given for all to believe that the earth is the immobile center of the universe) - was more of a bit of exposition incidental to the main exegesis of the various surrounding passages. that is, they fathers spoke of geocentrism as true simply because they believed it to be true in the same way we believe the earth is round rather than flat, not because they were opposing the view to some other challenging hypothesis, since there wasn’t any alternative hypothesis that anyone took seriously at the time.
because there is no obvious connection between geocentrism and the salvation of our souls. (we disagree about the passage from the catechism: “for the salvation of our souls” is not parenthetical in the least: god vouchsafes propositions in scripture which are (A) true, and (B) desired by god to be included for the salvation of our souls. that’s a conjunction, the truth of which requires the truth of both conjuncts.)
T
trth_skr
Guest
john doran:
Pius XII:
john doran:
john doran:
"…In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation…"
My personal interest is not to “force” people to believe in geocentrism or point out it is their duty to. I am interested in the truth of the matter. To me it is a pivotal issue in trying to understand the issues in the Church today. There is a crisis of faith, and this issue has the form of a test of faith, amongst other things.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
The inerrancy of Scriptures is not limited to faith and morals:
Pius XII:
john doran:
First, the declarations may not be infallible, but this does not preclude them from being theologically certain. Second, the eleven theological qualifers and Bellarmine all indicated it is a matter of faith (and this approved by the popes). Bellarmine left it open that it may not be a matter of faith in the subject matter itself, but clearly as a matter of Scriptural interpretation it is a matter of faith.
john doran:
John, the idea that the earth rotates and translates is incidental today, just as geostationism was incidental then. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Scriptural truths do not change based on current opinions, no matter how highly cherished they are. You are making a very big presumption by implying that the movement of the earth is established as fact.
john doran:
Itsjustdave did an excellent job explaining that the interpretation is more that of RobNY than what you are saying (starting here). He did so by reading the content of the footnotes. One opf the footnotes, from Augustine on the literal interpretation of Genesis:
"…In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation…"
My personal interest is not to “force” people to believe in geocentrism or point out it is their duty to. I am interested in the truth of the matter. To me it is a pivotal issue in trying to understand the issues in the Church today. There is a crisis of faith, and this issue has the form of a test of faith, amongst other things.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
J
john_doran
Guest
perhaps, but our knowledge of that inerrancy certainly is, because the only way we can be sure (A) what a certain passage means, and (B) that it is true, is if the church declares it to be so. and the church is competent to make such declarations only with regard to faith and morals.
i’m most certainly not saying that it is a fact - i am saying only that the theory of geolocomotion is the only theory taken seriosuly by the establishment today (and almost everyone else).
personally, i don’t know if it’s right, because for it to be right would require a detectable, absolute frame of reference in relation to which the earth was found to be motionless or not. and we haven’t detected one yet (if it’s even possible to do so).
perhaps one day. though i’m not aware of any research programs underway with the identification of such a reference-frame as their goal.
fair enough. though it can only test one’s faith if one has faith in it to begin with. and i don’t - as it stands now, i just don’t care if the earth is stationary or not, because i can’t find a compelling reason to care.
O
Ortho
Guest
I’ve been following the discussion, and have an observation. The pope said diurnal motion was erroneous in faith. Faith seems squarely on his side of the net. So, when the pope speaks on faith, are we to determine first if he should be addressing in it the context he has chosen?
I’ll let you guys get back to it now.
I’ll let you guys get back to it now.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would agree, if it was a truth of God and not an astronomical question. A scientific observation by the church 1500 years ago could well be wrong.
T
Thal59
Guest
I have seen this topic raised before. It is quite pointless because it is an argument of faith against debatable scientific theory.
To put it bluntly… Who cares???
I look a it this way.
My life evolves around Jesus. I am Christocentric.
The rest is fodder.
Thal59
To put it bluntly… Who cares???
I look a it this way.
My life evolves around Jesus. I am Christocentric.
The rest is fodder.
Thal59
O
Ortho
Guest
If the pope links scence to faith to scripture, it’s an interesting topic.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
The inerrancy of Scriptures is not limited to faith and morals:
john doran:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
John, the idea that the earth rotates and translates is incidental today, just as geostationism was incidental then. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Scriptural truths do not change based on current opinions, no matter how highly cherished they are. You are making a very big presumption by implying that the movement of the earth is established as fact.
john doran:
john doran:
john doran:
john doran:
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
Originally Posted by trth_skr
The inerrancy of Scriptures is not limited to faith and morals:
john doran:
The question of the inerrancy of Scripture is a matter of faith and morals. So, I would argue that the Church has the competency to argue on the innerrancy of any scriptural passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
John, the idea that the earth rotates and translates is incidental today, just as geostationism was incidental then. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Scriptural truths do not change based on current opinions, no matter how highly cherished they are. You are making a very big presumption by implying that the movement of the earth is established as fact.
john doran:
Opinion, and even high percentage subscription to a particular opinion does not truth make.
john doran:
This is one of the points I have been trying to make. If there is no “demonstration”, why not give the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the fathers, in which/whom we have faith, a chance?
john doran:
Must you wait for scientism? Why not (in the mean time) listen to the Church?
john doran:
The Holy Spirit cares, the fathers cared, and many popes cared. Think about it. We are not protestants.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
*The truth of God is for all people of all times, and does not change with times and cultures.
*
pnewton:
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
Originally Posted by trth_skr
*The truth of God is for all people of all times, and does not change with times and cultures.
*
A scientific observation today could well be wrong. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The Holy Spirit cannot be wrong.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Good for you, Thal59. It is all about you.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
P
pnewton
Guest
Absolutely. In the proper context as a question for science, I agree.
I am sure you are familiar with the concept of begging the question. That is all this little statement does. It is rhetoric without substance. No one questions it. It is the “what” that is a question.
J
john_doran
Guest
that the scriptures are inerrant at all is a matter of faith. that the church can make infallible proclamations is definitely a matter of faith. but the church is only competent to make infallible proclamations about the inerrancy of specific scriptural passages the content of which is ***itself ***a matter of faith or morals.
and i still don’t see how geocentrism has got anything to do with faith (or morals).
you are, of course, correct. but you miss my point: whether or not prevailing opinion is true, if there isn’t an alternative to that opinion, then, when one speaks about that opinion, one is simply making statements about the state of the doxastic union, so to speak, and not (necessarily) actually engaging in interpretation.
because they’re not scientists and not interested in teaching us about anything that doesn’t have to do with faith and the salvation of our souls. and, again, i don’t see the connection between a belief in geocentrism/staticism and sanctifying grace.
for the latter question, see my answer above.
as for the former, “scientism” seems to be a pejorative term. i’ll wait for science; and if that’s all you mean, then i’ll wait for it because that’s the method by which we use the faculties god gave us to determine the nature of the physical world.
so you say. but that’s precisely the point i’m disputing.
T
trth_skr
Guest
john doran:
Pius XII:
john doran:
john doran:
Thus to interpret one must have absolute knowledge. Thus only God can interpret. Thus God sent the Holy Spirit to help the Church interpret. And the Church did interpret. And this is why I am arguing for geoecentrism.
john doran:
john doran:
Scientism is when “science” is elevated to a status greater than God (i.e., scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.).
If science is not clear on the issue, but the Church is, and one chooses an opinion of science against the Church, this begins to sound like scientism. I do understand that there can be legitimate questions regarding the validity of a position of the Church. But I would propose that we, as Catholics, ought to think very carefully about what the Church has said, and not presume that our status as “modern men” has granted us as much insight as we would like to think. Bellarmine and the popes in the 17th century understood the issues then, and the issues have not changed in form (though perhaps in quantity of data they have changed). On the other hand I acknowledge that the Church itself has been ambiguous towards geocentrism in recent centuries, especially the 19th century, during which time many intellectuals were convinced (incorrectly) that Newtonian mechanics had disproven geocentrism. General relativity (for starters) has obliterated that perspective.
This is why I see geocentrism as a pivotal issue in regards to the issues of faith and the Church in these “post-modern” times.
john doran:
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
I disagree with that statement. Since the Scriptures are inerrant, they are inerrant in all subject matters. Again, Pius XII:
Pius XII:
And again, I am not claiming it was infallible, but certainly it was theologically certain. Much of what we believe as Catholics is not infallible.
john doran:
Three popes, eleven theological qualifiers and Bellarmine believe it does (for starters).
john doran:
Let me help complete that thought:
Thus to interpret one must have absolute knowledge. Thus only God can interpret. Thus God sent the Holy Spirit to help the Church interpret. And the Church did interpret. And this is why I am arguing for geoecentrism.
john doran:
They taught what they taught. Why do you think they taught it?
john doran:
Science is fine. It is the legitimate study of God’s creation.
Scientism is when “science” is elevated to a status greater than God (i.e., scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.).
If science is not clear on the issue, but the Church is, and one chooses an opinion of science against the Church, this begins to sound like scientism. I do understand that there can be legitimate questions regarding the validity of a position of the Church. But I would propose that we, as Catholics, ought to think very carefully about what the Church has said, and not presume that our status as “modern men” has granted us as much insight as we would like to think. Bellarmine and the popes in the 17th century understood the issues then, and the issues have not changed in form (though perhaps in quantity of data they have changed). On the other hand I acknowledge that the Church itself has been ambiguous towards geocentrism in recent centuries, especially the 19th century, during which time many intellectuals were convinced (incorrectly) that Newtonian mechanics had disproven geocentrism. General relativity (for starters) has obliterated that perspective.
This is why I see geocentrism as a pivotal issue in regards to the issues of faith and the Church in these “post-modern” times.
john doran:
The declarations speak for themselves. Unlike most arguments against geocentrism they are pretty explicit and clear.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
A scientific observation today could well be wrong. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
pnewton:
pnewton:
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
Originally Posted by trth_skr
A scientific observation today could well be wrong. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
And who decides where any separation between science and Church lies? I propose only the Church itself has the perogative to determine this. And since the Church has spoken on this issue and not reversed itself, I propose the boundary was defined, and geocentrism is on the side of the Church’s scope.
Granted, there is some opinion expressed on this board!
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
As far as I am concerned, the real question about Galileo and the Church, is why was the Church even involved? What difference did it make what he said or taught? Right or wrong, scientists have been advancing theories forever - that shouldn’t make them subject to threats of burning at the stake.
P
pnewton
Guest
An again you beg the question. Who determines that the church has spoken, not just to limited audience, but once, infalliable, for all time. You?
No. The magesterium (that would be the current magesterium, since they currently have the authority to do so.) If someone with the authority in the Vatican decided to pronounce what you are saying, then I would bow to that side. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, not Galileo. Galileo was threatend with torture, but it was never carried out.
Why was the Church involved? The Church repesents God. It chooses where to be involved.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
No.
There is no precedent that the currrent administration has any priority over past administrations, unless they actually state something- which the present administration has not.
The Church has pronounced it, and it is not required that the current administration repeat every declaration of every past administration to maintain its truthfulness.
We already know that Jesus was Chist. He is man and God. Mary is Queen of Heaven. Jesus is divine and human at the same time, etc. It is not necassary for the current administration to rubber stamp past decisions. Past decisions stand as tradition. No need for crutches.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.co
B
buffalo
Guest
The issue was he declared the Bible to be wrong.
- Status