Replies

Not liking the Catholic church today, or disliking today’s Pope, because of despotic popes 400 years ago, is like disliking Prince Charles in England because you disapprove of Henry the 8th.

There's a big difference however. Charles and his mother Queen E. do not claim any sort of infallibility, (be it ex cathedra or whatever) or lack of change in their powers, or the powers of the English monarchy, from ol' Henry VIII. There's been a revolution (and restoration--and then moderation) of change of the English crown since then which is huge--and is there for anyone to see. No one worries about the "divine right of kings" anymore, as even the most loyal English subject to the monarchy does not believe it.... However, not so with Rome. The same sorts of claims about papal authority are made today--by many on this thread, as were made 400 years ago about, and by, despotic popes. It would be as if folks in Parliment today were taking very seriously Charles' divine "right" to behead whomever he wants... Conservative Roman Catholics still say the Council of Trent degrees (which actually formally curse to hell all conservative Protestants) are in effect, as the Church, supposedly in council, cannot make mistakes. Oddly, when Vatican II says Muslims may go to Heaven... (and also retracts the condemnation of Protestants) nobody goes to the mat defending THAT particular infallible decree. Gallileo WAS condemned for his scientific work, precisely because the Church mistakenly believed certain things about the nature of the universe from scripture and tradition. The pope and the Church (shock of SHOCKS!) erred...and to do so is human. All Christians should be more concerned about the one human Being who does not err, namely our God Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church--knowing it is He alone who saves, while yes, still using a poor weak, and often erring, Mother Church to bring people into His mercy.

All Christians should be more concerned about the one human Being who does not err, namely our God Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church--knowing it is He alone who saves, while yes, still using a poor weak, and often erring, Mother Church to bring people into His mercy.

Using the Galileo incident as a condemnation of Church authority on Scripture is, I think, an erroneous argument. Unfortunately that conversation is one that will have to wait for later, because I am about to leave town on a business trip. But maybe later.

There's a big difference however. Charles and his mother Queen E. do not claim any sort of infallibility, (be it ex cathedra or whatever) or lack of change in their powers, or the powers of the English monarchy, from ol' Henry VIII. There's been a revolution (and restoration--and then moderation) of change of the English crown since then which is huge--and is there for anyone to see. No one worries about the "divine right of kings" anymore, as even the most loyal English subject to the monarchy does not believe it.... However, not so with Rome.

Actually, quite so with Rome. "Rome" does acknowledge SOME changes in its powers. Vatican City is a smaller chunk o' real estate than the larger chunk over which emperors asked the Pope to assume civil authority a few gazillion year earlier.

Conservative Roman Catholics still say the Council of Trent degrees (which actually formally curse to hell all conservative Protestants) are in effect, as the Church, supposedly in council, cannot make mistakes. Oddly, when Vatican II says Muslims may go to Heaven... (and also retracts the condemnation of Protestants) nobody goes to the mat defending THAT particular infallible decree.

At least you used the word "formally". Vatican decrees can be made to say whatever you want them to say if you ignore some and overstress or misinterpret others. To someone who wants more to know what we teach than to find or to cobble up some bogus inconsistency in which to trap us, there is no contradiction between the formal anathemas of Trent and the teaching that God's extraordinary saving acts might extend further than even the Church imagines.

And on other threads I HAVE gone to the mat asserting that the Church teaches, not unreasonably, that the unbpatized can be saved.

Gallileo WAS condemned for his scientific work, precisely because the Church mistakenly believed certain things about the nature of the universe from scripture and tradition.

This is "precisely" not true. Before Galileo's condemnation, back in 1624 Urban VIII is said to have told Galileo that the Church had never declared and would never declare Copernicanism to be heretical. (So says Wood, Thomas; How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization page 73.) Heilbron, in The Sun in the Church:Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, refers to statements by Church astronomers in 1642 and 1651 that heliocentrism was not heretical, and these guys were not condemned. Before and after the Galileo disaster Catholic priests and astronomers continued to explore heliocentric hypothesis with impunity.

Those who insist that the Church was simply resisting science in general or even heliocentrism in particular should provide an explanation of how Galileo's condemnation seems to have had very little impact on the continuation of heliocentric researches OR, for that matter, why Copernicus was not condemned.

Again:Gallileo WAS condemned for his scientific work,...

No. This is not true. Galileo was feted and honored for his scientific work. He was even given papal medals! Galileo was condemned for insisting, beyond his knowledge and in the face of the absence any confirming evidence of a parallax shift, that heliocentrism was proven fact.

In history as in science, facts and data are our friends. The facts and the data show that the standard slam about Galileo ain't so.