Posted on 01/25/2007 11:37:17 PM PST by Gamecock
Check this out.
So, the Pope is superior to all of us "inferiors"?
And the judgment of the Pope is superior then to the judgment of all of us inferiors? So that would mean that we are not to question the judgment of the Pope?
*But, when has Scripture EVER stopped sola scripturists from attacking Jesus?
A Sola Scripturist would know better than to kiss the a book filled with doctrines of demons.
Is that a Koran?
GC, why the sudden mud throwing?
You know, I think there is a reference to this in H.W. Crocker's "Triumph", unfortunately not online but clearly a better source. It's on a number of list of best 100 Catholic books.....all good sources.
I discount this article for many reasons, but one in particular: it quotes Richard McBrien.
For all the non-Catholics out there: any article which quotes Richard McBrien isn't of much value.
You wrote:
"It seems one did. Once again, from the Papal Condemnation of Galileo:"
There was no papal condemnation of Galileo. These are the men who wrote the inquisitional condemnation of Galileo:
F. Cardinal of Ascoli, B. Cardinal Gessi, G. Cardinal Bentivoglio, F. Cardinal Verospi, Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona, M. Cardinal Ginetti, Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio [Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]
The pope allowed the ruling to stand. He made no statement about doctrine WHATSOEVER. Again, please learn history.
Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310.
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Never uttered by the pope, and never issued as a doctrine by the Church. This clear (i.e. who is speaking) with the opening line of the document you are quoting but are clearly unable to understand: "...were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office..."
"So what you're saying is that the Pope either thought he was infallible and was wrong, or was knowingly acting outside of his authority. Which is it?"
Which is it? Number 3: Lurker is wrong. He doesn't understand what he's talking about and has been utterly ub=nable to present a logical bit of evidence to the contrary.
Now that the facts have been posted I am sure an apology or an admission of error will follow :)
I will copy and save your post. It will come in handy because this false charge will be repeated... It is ineluctable
Thanks, brother. I have been meaning to get that book
So the document titled "Papal Condemnation of Galileo" wasn't in fact an official Church documentnor was the prosecution of Galileo an official act of the Church. Is that your position?
These are the men who wrote the inquisitional condemnation of Galileo: F. Cardinal of Ascoli, B. Cardinal Gessi, G. Cardinal Bentivoglio, F. Cardinal Verospi, Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona, M. Cardinal Ginetti, Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio
So your position is that these men were not acting under the authority of the Pope when they did this?
and never issued as a doctrine by the Church.
So your position is that the Pope allowed some renegade Bishops to prosecute a man in his name over a doctrinal issue that the Church actually agreed with?
Riiiigggghhht.
L
Thanks, brother.
So the Roman Catholic Church is Jesus?
You wrote:
“So the document titled "Papal Condemnation of Galileo" wasn't in fact an official Church document nor was the prosecution of Galileo an official act of the Church. Is that your position?”
No, that is not my position. My position is the obviously correct one: an official document of the inquisition is not to be mistaken for a papal document. The pope is the pope. The inquisition is the inquisition. I do not confuse the one with the other because the two were never the same person or entity. You confuse them, and in fact, conflate them.
“So your position is that these men were not acting under the authority of the Pope when they did this?”
No, that is not my position at all. Again, you ask the wrong question. Is any action performed by inquisitors even when agreed to by popes a matter of papal infallibility? No. That is the question and that is the answer.
“So your position is that the Pope allowed some renegade Bishops to prosecute a man in his name over a doctrinal issue that the Church actually agreed with? Riiiigggghhht.”
No, again you ask the wrong question. First of all, were any of the men bishops? I saw they were cardinals. I have no idea if they were bishops. You make an assumption. I do not. Also, you make other mistakes:
1) The pope is not the inquisition, and the inquisition is not the pope.
2) Even of both pope and inquisition agreed on Galileo it is immaterial since it (meaning the canonical condemnation) was a canonical/juridical matter and not a definition of a doctrine for the faithful.
3) Like all inquisition trials, it was not private – therefore it could not impinge upon papal infallibility because that is ALWAYS public.
4) No doctrine was defined by the pope.
5) No teaching was issued by the pope.
6) No issue of science can fall under papal infallibility. EVER.
Until you learn the basics of what papal infallibility is and isn’t you will continue to make the errors you have made. Have you ever even read the decree on papal infallibility? You don’t seem to have read it. If you haven’t read it then you don’t know what you’re talking about OBVIOUSLY.
Whom did Paul persecute? (a perfect question to ask the day after the feast day of St. Paul's conversion).
Paul persecuted the Church. Jesus said to Paul: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9:5)
When you attack the Church, you attack Christ.
It's near the end of the second paragraph.
Jean-Paul Laurens (1838-1921)
Le Pape Formose et Etienne VII ("Pope Formosus and Stephen VII"), 1870
Concile cadavérique de 897 (The "Cadaver Synod")
Musée des Beaux-Arts, Nantes
The Roman Catholic Church is not "The Church". When Paul was persecuting Jesus he was engaged in killing Christians. We are not killing anyone, we are simply pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church's teachings are false and they are not scriptural and that the practices of the Roman Cathoic Church have become fully engulfed with pagan rituals clearly prohibited by scripture in the strongest sense.
There are members of the true Church of Christ in the Catholic fold. Just as there were members of the true Church of Christ in the Church at Laodicea. At best the Roman Catholic church is in the same shoes as the Church at Laodicea. At worst it is an apostate Church.
We do not persecute Jesus by pointing out the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. We proclaim the truth of scripture. Since scripture is the Word of God we are proclaiming Christ, not persecuting him.
Those who would relegate the Word of God to secondary status beneath the traditions of men are those who would persecute Christ.
You wrote:
"The Roman Catholic Church is not "The Church"."
I am not "Roman Catholic". I am Catholic. The Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church.
"When Paul was persecuting Jesus he was engaged in killing Christians. We are not killing anyone,..."
Irrelevant. Attack the Church and you attack Christ. Persecution does not necessarily mean murder.
"...we are simply pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church's teachings are false and they are not scriptural and that the practices of the Roman Cathoic Church have become fully engulfed with pagan rituals clearly prohibited by scripture in the strongest sense."
All you are pointing out is that you know don't know what you attack. To attack papal infallibility without even knowing what it is and what it isn't does not lend credibility to your cause nor ascribe credit to your knowledge.
"At best the Roman Catholic church is in the same shoes as the Church at Laodicea. At worst it is an apostate Church."
Coming from someone who can't even express what those supposedly apostate beliefs are that comment doesn't even give me reason to consider it.
"We do not persecute Jesus by pointing out the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. We proclaim the truth of scripture. Since scripture is the Word of God we are proclaiming Christ, not persecuting him."
Impossible. No one can proclaim Christ against His body - the Church.
"Those who would relegate the Word of God to secondary status beneath the traditions of men are those who would persecute Christ."
And, surprise, that isn't what we do. Again you attack what you don't know.
And......
The article was obviously penned while he was still alive.
Who's "we"?
Not a facetious question.
The reason I ask, is because whenever I discuss this issue with non-Catholics, the "truth" is often different. God is one. Truth is one. There are not many truths. Only one.
Proclaiming the truth, therefore, implies a unified message. I don't see that unity, despite the claims to the contrary. There is a certain form of unity, I suppose one could say, in the opposition to Catholicism, but amongst those who claim the "truth" of Scripture for themselves, there appears widespread disunity and disagreement on what "truth" actually is.
If the Catholic Church doesn't have, then who does? Is it the man on Channel 96 who's waiting for the Rapture, or the holy roller on Channel 125 who's preaching the gospel of prosperity in the here and now?
Copernicus was never tried or condemned for anything. What do you propose we should tell him?
Galileo's beliefs were never condemned by a Pope. His work was found to "savor of heresy" by the Holy Office, today's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
What do you think that has to do with Papal infallibility?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.