It is not a teaching at all. Read any encyclical. Not every word is teaching. And should that encyclical repeat something the Church teaches infallibly, that doctrine is likely expressed in no more than a few sentences. What shall be said of the rest of the encyclical?CCC 2357:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
Do you believe this to be infallible teaching of the Church? I do not.
God bless
Do you believe the Magisterium should present what is false as if it is true as to hasIt is not a teaching at all. Read any encyclical. Not every word is teaching. And should that encyclical repeat something the Church teaches infallibly, that doctrine is likely expressed in no more than a few sentences. What shall be said of the rest of the encyclical?
I’ve not seen it assert anything I know to be false.Do you believe the Magisterium should present what is false as if it is true as to has
in this case? I do not.
God bless
The Magisterium once asserted the sun circles the earth the Magisterium corrected this falseI’ve not seen it assert anything I know to be false.
Please offer the document where the magisterium asserted this.The Magisterium once asserted the sun circles the earth the Magisterium corrected this false
claim.
I thought this error was well known perhaps you will take Pope John Paul II’s word for it.Please offer the document where the magisterium asserted this.
Thanks.
There is nothing in that document that establishes that the Church ever bound the faithful’s conscience to believe the sun revolves around the earth.I thought this error was well known perhaps you will take Pope John Paul II’s word for it.
(ref) its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html:
“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth”
God bless
The old Gallileo fallacy to prove homosexualism. That’s a first.There is nothing in that document that establishes that the Church ever bound the faithful’s conscience to believe the sun revolves around the earth.
I think you are woefully misinformed about your Catholic faith, jj.I thought this error was well known perhaps you will take Pope John Paul II’s word for it.
(ref) its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html:
“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth”
God bless
Now, are you able to offer something to back up your claim, or perhaps you should retract this?The Magisterium once asserted the sun circles the earth the Magisterium corrected this false
claim.
**The Magisterium **once asserted the sun circles the earth the Magisterium corrected this false
claim.
What’s the “Gallileo fallacy”?The old Gallileo fallacy to prove homosexualism. That’s a first.
Who do you think Pope John Paul ll was referring to, the Magisterium are theologians.I think you are woefully misinformed about your Catholic faith, jj.
Surely you should know by now that “theologians” are NOT THE SAME as the magisterium.
You proposed that the magisterium taught geocentrism.
Here’s your post, as a reminder:
Now, are you able to offer something to back up your claim, or perhaps you should retract this?
You need to understand what constitutes “the magisterium”.
And please note: it is NOT THE SAME as “theologians”.
Please review what the magisterium is, and then either come back with a statement which supports your assertion, or offer a retraction.
Again, your words, my bold:
You are making a very elementary error in having great ignorance of what the magisterium is.Who do you think Pope John Paul ll was referring to, the Magisterium are theologians.
“three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually
condemned” (ref) catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
Do you think these Cardinals were rouge actors? Why do you think they condemned his works?
It was because they they falsely maintained the centrality of the earth and rejected the truth that
the earth circled the sun.
God bless
Is it your opinion that the ten cardinals who judged Galileo were not part of theYou are making a very elementary error in having great ignorance of what the magisterium is.
You need to offer a document, FROM THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, which affirms your claim.
You have not been able to do this.
Best to retract and just say, “Some folks in the Church taught that the earth was the center of creation. But when I said it was the magisterium, I was mistaken”.
Please read up on what constitutes the magisterium of our Catholic Church.
(Here is an example of your error: Edith Stein was a theologian. But she was not a member of the magisterium.
Theologians do not equal the magisterium.)
QED.
Holy quoting out of context Batman! Here’s the full and pertinent part:“three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually
condemned” (ref) catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
.Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved
“Of the Magisterium” is not a relevant term. The Pope is “of the Magisterium” but is not “the Magisterium” other than in very limited circumstances.Is it your opinion that the ten cardinals who judged Galileo were not part of the
Magisterium? I believe they were.
God bless
I will tell you the correct answer: the Magisterium NEVER declared the earth to be the center of creation.Anyone who argued that the heavens circled the earth is now known to have made a manifest error. I don’t know the history of whether the Magisterium accepted that was so, but they may have. Who cares?
What is out of context the Magisterium was in error to support the centrality of the earth andHoly quoting out of context Batman! Here’s the full and pertinent part:
.
Bottom line: The whole “The Church changed its teaching on geocentrism therefore this means something about its teachings on sexuality” is rotten both in premises and conclusion and is frankly embarrassing to attempt to keep up. Best to stop digging this hole.
And by “the Church”, what is meant is “the teaching authority of the Church”.Again, provide any documentation that the Church bound the faithful to believe geocentrism. You can’t. Repent and stop digging.
Exactly. Moreover, neither Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, nor the teaching authority of the Church demands belief in geocentrism. Homosexual acts however, are condemned by all three. When you add in things like reason and simple apprehension of biology, sodomy has no leg to stand on. In fact, it is only humored in the wacky and self-refuting world of moral relativism. In other words, in intellectual suicide.And by “the Church”, what is meant is “the teaching authority of the Church”.
Some folks who are woefully misinformed about Catholicism might think that quoting
“Fr. Obscura From The Mideval Ages” equates to “the Church taught geocentrism”.