Fiat:
Well you should have because that’s essentially the position you are trying to destroy, isn’t it?
It is not my goal to destroy it on this thread.
Fiat:
A few fallible men in a fallible tribunal mistakenly decreed heresy.
Again no.
The fact that no one in the church pronounced that the Sun traveled around the Earth using the words “ex cathedra”, or abracadabra for that matter, really is of no consequence. This was the official position of the church - Galileo was condemned by the Holy Office - all participants considered it official. Three different popes did nothing to ameliorate the situation. If this was “unofficial” why didn’t someone “official” step in to correct it?
The point here is this: These “few men” as you call them were part of the TEACHING MAGESTERIUM. Yet they could not interpret the scripture correctly, nor could they EVEN RECOGNIZE that this was an issue where they SHOULDN’T be interpreting the scripture.
Therefore, these alleged “experts” on scripture provide no better interpretive capability than the non-experts. And in this case, Galileo, a “layman” was more accurate in defining this as outside the area of interpretation for the Magesterium than were the members of that very body.
If members of the “OFFICIAL BODY” cannot do it infallibly, then who can? While no fallible believer will interpret scripture “infallibly” they will interpet it well enough to receive the light of God’s revelation. Even unbelievers can and have read or heard the Gospels and using “private judgement” have determined that what they had read or heard was true. Why even the ECF had differing opinions on all sorts of theological matters. The objections you raise seem to stem from matters of Church governance.
Additionally, your view of this seems to imply that HAD the Magesterium taken this issue up “OFFICIALLY”, they would have been able to divine that either a) they had no business confirming the Aristotilean view of Cosmology using scripture b) this entire issue was outside the concern of the Church c) that the Earth indeed circled the Sun.
But even this supposition weakens your case in that the Magesterium apparently was not even AWARE that they SHOULD HAVE considered this OFFICIALLY.
The die of Aristotle’s teachings being absorbed into Catholic Teaching was cast long before Galileo’s time. Origen and Clement of Alexandria postulated that Aristotle’s teaching could be supported in light of scrpture using allegorical interpretation, Augustine signed onto this position, but in a more conservative form, and Aquinas also had the same opinion. The Church’s position of tradition holding an equal place with scripture had painted the Church into the corner regarding Aristotilean Cosmology. The church could not, would not, and did not alter course. Galileo called that teaching into question, he was forced to recant, his writings were seized and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. His works were smuggled out of Italy and published elsewhere.
Your rationalization that a “few” did this or that, but all is well because the Church (3 and half centuries after the fact) apologized is very weak indeed.
Peace
As for adoration, it has a long history. Once again I won’t derail the thread by delving in to it. Please answer my question. Should our practice regarding the Eucharist be tolerated as an in-house debate issue or a main and plain thing?
