The reason for this “diverson” is to demonstrate that the alleged teaching of the magesterium is as a practical matter no better than interpreting scripture for oneself.
In that vein I offer the Galileo “episode” which proves that not only did officials of the Church use the Bible to jusitfy their scientific conclusions but based on their faulty interpretation forced Galileo to confess ERROR where there was none.
I can confidently state that Galileo was NOT IN ERROR because as you have pointed out Rome denies that the Bible instructs with regard to issues of science.
The objection to this: that Rome did not “infallibly” teach an earth-centered view of the universe is really beside the point for two reasons:
- The dogma of infallibility cannot be an excuse here because of the Catholic tendency to anachronistically apply it using a thinly veiled tautology - the phrase ex cathedra was not invoked. This handy apoletic loophole has been attempted with regard to Honorius, Liberius, indulgences, etc…the phrase abracadabra was not used either - why? Because the Curia, in Galileo’s day, had no knowledge of it.
- Rome viewed as its perogative the condemnation of heresy. It found Galileo “strongly supected of heresy”.
How can one be a heretic, guilty of heresy, or even “vehemently suspeced of heresy” unless one violates a teaching(s) of the Church?
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Heresy in part as this:
“The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church;
the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of
dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely
objective, or
material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church.”
Galileo was sentenced based, in whole, or in part, on his deviation from Church TEACHING.
Back around again. How could that be so if Rome did not teach on matters of science?
Those trying Galileo were certain of what they were trying him for:
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html
“Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (
which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world…also,
that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description.”
Again if it wasn’t part of the deposit of faith how could Galileo been considered heretical?
Peace
