Speculatores domus Israel

[trth_skr]

Wow, and this isn’t considered ex cathedra?

Most of the elements are there, I admit. This is clearly a theologically certain proposition or doctrine.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JimG]

Mark argues that the papal bull in question is, if not infallible, at least “a theologically certain proposition or doctrine.”

I would contend that no papal bull is infallible. (In particular, one which concerns matters of science rather than faith or morals.)

But suppose Mark is right. His conclusion would be: then the scientific theory of geocentrism must be true, being based as it is on a theologically certain papal proposition. .

Whereas myfavoritmartin’s conclusion from the same assumption would be: then the Church is in error, having erroneously proclaimed a wrong scientific theory to be certainly true.

 

[JimG]

The science described a natural law that God set in order.

The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong. He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; how is this not a matter of faith . . .

Natural law is not a matter of faith or morals, nor can it be the subject of infallible pronouncements. Geocentrism is no different than the big bang in this regard. The pope’s views on these matters are his own opinion regarding scientific matters.

I do believe that in Galileo’s time, all the best heliocentrists were Catholic, many supported by the Church.

 

[trth_skr]

Mark argues that the papal bull in question is, if not infallible, at least “a theologically certain proposition or doctrine.”

My personal view is that it is likely not infallible; though I can see that the form of the elements required for infallibility are present in the Bull. I think it would require an explicit review of the Church to determine its status.

I would contend that no papal bull is infallible. (In particular, one which concerns matters of science rather than faith or morals.)

Papal Bulls are not in and of themselves infallible. But papal Bulls are communications of popes, and when they communicate a principle using the form required by Vat. I for infallibility, then it is that communication that needs to be considered. The fact that the communication occurs in a papal Bull helps to establish the Vat. I requirement that the communication was intended for the entire Church.

But suppose Mark is right. His conclusion would be: then the scientific theory of geocentrism must be true, being based as it is on a theologically certain papal proposition. .

No, not actually. If you read my blog, I propose it is correct because the Scriptures say so (revelation). This is backed up with the Father’s interpretation of the Scriptures. It is then ultimately established through the action of three popes (Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII), the final being the strongest action. The Assumption of Mary is not true because of an infallible statement of a pope, but rather because it is true. The infallible statement of the pope only settled the question.

Whereas myfavoritmartin’s conclusion from the same assumption would be: then the Church is in error, having erroneously proclaimed a wrong scientific theory to be certainly true.

This is the argument put forth by Father Roberts in the late 19th century. Fr. Robert’s mistake (and by extension if you are correct, myfavoritemartin’s mistake) is in the assumption that geocentrism has been disproven. If you read Galileo Was Wrong, you will see that this is not so.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Natural law is not a matter of faith or morals, nor can it be the subject of infallible pronouncements. Geocentrism is no different than the big bang in this regard. The pope’s views on these matters are his own opinion regarding scientific matters.
…

And who determines when the Church can step in and make a proclamation regarding a physical fact (i.e., Jesus was a man, God created the universe…)? Stephen Hawking?

No, I say, it is the church that determines its own boundarys and scope. I showed in my blog that the Church did determine that rejectnig the stability of the earth was a matter of faith. So your argument fails here. There is no absolute divide between Church and science. God created everything that science studies. Nothing is separate from God and by extension, the Church.

Your statement regarding what was a pope’s personal opinion is incorrect. The Church determined it was a matter of faith and acted on it through the Index and the Inquisition.

Are you so sure that geoentrism is not true that you are willing to doubt three popes? Why not give the Church a chance? I respectfully suggest you put some thought in what institutions you place your faith.

Mark Wyatt
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.

 

[JimG]

Are you so sure that geoentrism is not true that you are willing to doubt three popes? Why not give the Church a chance? I respectfully suggest you put some thought in what institutions you place your faith.

Well, after watching a Jesuit astronomer give a lecture on the origins of the universe, stellar evolution, planetary formation, and the spread of the higher numbered elements of the periodic table through novas and supernovas, I’m pretty sure that geocentrism is not a true or sufficient explanation for the observable structure of the universe.

But it wasn’t just the Jesuit astronomer who convinced me. Everything I’ve read beginning with way back with George Gamow in the 1950’s clear up to the present seems to support what has come to be known as “the standard model.” And I don’t find any intrinsic theological difficulties with the standard model.

Now, I’m sure that the standard model will be modified in the future, perhaps substantially. But I don’t see any chance that it will be replaced by geocentrism. After all, heliocentrism didn’t turn out to be accurate, either, at least not as a description of the universe.

I always place my faith in the Church when it comes to matters of faith and morals. The Church has never led me astray. But I think it would be a mistake to look to the Church for binding opinions on scientific issues.

 

[6glargento]

The science described a natural law that God set in order.

The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong. He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; how is this not a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) or a moral issue (insistent on one’s point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?

actaully heliocentrism is tecnically only a theory it has never been proven 100% true, therefore the pope was never proven wrong. so even if it was supposed to be excathedra you cannot prove that the pope erred. you can provide strong scientific evidence of an error but you cannot prove it. and in order to discredit the infallibility of the papacy you have to prove that he erred and you can’t.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

actaully heliocentrism is tecnically only a theory it has never been proven 100% true, therefore the pope was never proven wrong. so even if it was supposed to be excathedra you cannot prove that the pope erred. you can provide strong scientific evidence of an error but you cannot prove it. and in order to discredit the infallibility of the papacy you have to prove that he erred and you can’t.

What is sad is the effort you take to defend his inerrancy, if ya hafta work this hard maybe we should just focus on his word… whatcha think?

 

[Eden]

When you ask if a pope’s statements about astronomy were infallible, to me, the answer is obvious. It is not a matter of faith and morals that I must believe that the earth goes around the sun, the sun goes around the earth, whatever. In other words, these scientific inquiries in the Middle Ages were interesting, but the conclusions reached when asking these questions do not affect our salvation. I have never heard a pope declare as doctrine, that unless we believe the earth is the center of the universe, Jesus will condemn us at the Judgment. I think this whole “Galileo Controversy”, so twisted by anti-Catholics to challenge the authority of the Church, is much ado about nothing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is sad is the effort you take to defend his inerrancy, if ya hafta work this hard maybe we should just focus on his word… whatcha think?

Efforts to defend are required in direct proportion to the efforts made to attack, my friend.