Posted on 01/25/2007 11:37:17 PM PST by Gamecock
Did you know that what Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy not for his assertion that the earth moved but his humanistic deduction which he drew from it? That he was not forbidden from hypothesizing of heliocentrism (which was indeed wrong), but from asserting that it was fact? That Galileo neither invented the theory of Heliocentrism or the telescope, and was quite wrong about Keppler's work on gravity and eliptical orbits? That the church's formally stated position was not incorrect -- it denied that the sun was stationary, but, although the inference was quite understandable, never asserted the earth did not move -- but that Galileo's was?
Galileo defended his heliocentric notions by adopting Augustine's position that poetical passages of the bible should not be taken literally, a position the Catholic Church did not condemn, but which is commonly condemned among the Protestants who so love to gloat over Galileo. In fact, while condemned to death in Calvinist lands, Galileo himself remained Catholic.
Yet no less than St. Robert Bellarmine proffered that Galileo's assertions were valid (but he believed false) conjecture. The edict issued by Pope Urban VIII and delievered by Bellarmine did not use the word, "heresy," and admonished Galileo only to cease reporting his "hypothesis" as fact. Galileo was found guilty of disobeying Bellarmine's instructions, not to assert his hypothesis as fact, not of a heretic supposition. Had he obeyed the church, he not only would have been innocent of the charges brought against him, he would have been correct.
>> In the case of Galileo the Pope said: "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." <<
The Pope was correct and Galileo was wrong.
>> "The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith." <<
Any scientist would acknowledge that Galileo had failed to prove his assertion, and hence was false philosophically. Your selection of quotes is hardly an abuse of context; I'd certainly submit that mine is ordinarily read as a far less natural was of reading it, but it is interesting that the Pope considered the notion of a stationary Sun heretical, but declined to do so for the motion of the Earth.
In any event, the Pope cannot said to be infallible of such matters, since they do not involve matters of moral doctrine. This is more of an instance of a Pope simply getting the facts wrong of ordinary events. The various condemnations and restorations of many souls, including other popes, makes clear that the popes never thought they couldn't contradict previous' popes discernment of such matters.
--The four conditions are:
--1...
Does this legalese seem as silly to anyone as it does to me? The pope can only be correct IF these four niggling conditions must be met. And the pope will wiggle and squirm to make sure at least one does not get met so they will not be blamed for the downfall of the papacy. So lets make all these rules and laws and claim they are handed down from the Holy Spirit, Mary and whoever the saint of the day is. Is this Scriptural? Don't answer, you are RCC, you don't need the Scripture. Okay, show me where it is Traditional. Did Augustine, Athenasius, or perhaps Mileto of Sardis come up with these rules?
Did Jesus Himself say that Peter must be addressing the whole church, or Peter must be expressing his Supereme Apostolic Authority when He gave Peter and his unmentioned successors the Keys? Did the Binding and Loosing come with all these strings attached?
"Hey Pete, you are the Supreme Authority, but you gotta be standing on one foot, rubbing your head and patting your belly or it doesn't count..."
Nah, IF the Matthew 16 verse is looked at, it surely does not say anything about fine print.
HD: "Let the courts record that the defendant gives no answer."
In fact, after a scathing cross-examination, the defendant needed a few moments to compose himself.
I think that should read "compost."
Dr E: I think that should read "compost."
Or "decompose".
"Marlowe: "It's the pressure from the inquisition. He does look a bit pale and gaunt."
HD: "Let the courts record that the defendant gives no answer."
The defendant is thoroughly mortified by the entire experience.
Better. 8~)
This case was D.O.A.
Looks like somebody sought a writ of habeus corpus.
"I should point out that theologians asked the Vatican directly whether this was a true ex cathedra Papal definition, and the reply was negative, with the explanation being that it was re-stating something that was already infallibly known."
Serious question respectfully asked...
Via the above explanation is it not very likely that Benedict and future popes will ever speak ex cathedra again since the Church has believed the same thing since X date or time, correct? I don't see how a pope could come up with anything new so infallibility seems to be expiring quickly in a sense?
Follow up question. When was the last officially confirmed ex cathedra statement and how did it differ from this statement in terms of not simply stating what was already infallbily known?
Thank you for help...again, I ask respectfully.
Blessings to you in Christ.
PM
Follow up question. When was the last officially confirmed ex cathedra statement and how did it differ from this statement in terms of not simply stating what was already infallbily known?
Excellent question. Ping to watch for the answer.
Via the above explanation is it not very likely that Benedict and future popes will ever speak ex cathedra again since the Church has believed the same thing since X date or time, correct? I don't see how a pope could come up with anything new so infallibility seems to be expiring quickly in a sense?
I think the Marian doctrines of the assumption and immaculate conception were announced around 1875 and 1950. So never say never. :)
I think the next one might be that Mary is officially made Co-Redeemer. :(
It was a common piety in the middle ages to acknowledge (and even amplify) the sinful behavior of the clergy, particular the popes, that all the people should know that the truth of the Catholic Church rests not in the holiness of the man, but in the divine protection of the office. Indeed, from John Crysostum to Dante',it is a great tradition.
Yeah, especially for the sinful clergy.
Matt 7:15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.
If not, we can never know infallably that the pope is correct!
Ping
Hopefully this will happen to Ted Kennedy one day.
Only in areas for faith and morals — are faith and morals covered here?
EXPLAINING THE IDEA OF INFALLIBILITY [Catholic Caucus]
Infallibility
Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term
Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Radio Replies Second Volume - Infallibility
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Infallibility: The Magisterium
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Truth Handling: Infallibility
Radio Replies First Volume - Infallibility
Infallible Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
Some people just cannot differentiate between the two words:
Impeccable
and
Infallible
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.