Posted on 01/25/2007 11:37:17 PM PST by Gamecock
...
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.
Nice dodge, but you're wrong.
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 also said:
"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."
Was the Pope infallible when he said that?
L
C'es la vie.
I could not care less, brother. I have fulfilled my Christian Duty before God and man.
Come on..as if that would have made any difference. I ALREADY posted the definition as to what constitutes Infallibility.
gotcha
You wrote:
"But that's not the 'doctrine of infallibility'."
Neither is what you're posting. That was the point.
"So if the Pope woke up tomorrow and said "Doctrine says that the Earth is flat." he would be infallible?"
No. No pope can make an infallible statement about science. Science is not his to make such statements about.
"Tell that to Galileo or Copernicus."
Why? Neither one was ever the subject of a papal infallible statement. Copernicus even dedicated his book to a pope. Galileo counted at least one pope among his friends. Galileo's problem was that he strayed into theology rather than sticking to science. Learn your history, please.
If you're going to attack papal infallibility, wouldn't help fo you to know what it is and what it isn't?
The present Pope isn't Pope John Paul II.
And I posted the Popes own words in response. He condemend Galileo on a matter of Faith.
He also condemned him on a matter of Doctrine.
He was also acting in his official capacity as the Pope. It seems that all three of those conditions were met, and that the Pope failed each and every one of them.
So it looks like this whole 'infallibility' thing means whatever the Catholic Church wants it to mean at any given moment in time.
From what you've posted it seems you're saying that the Pope washed his hands of Galileos condemnation in much the way Pilate washed his hands of another condemnation.
L
It seems one did. Once again, from the Papal Condemnation of Galileo:
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.
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?
L
"So he's infallible, except when he's not. Is that about it?"
You MUST be a Jesuit.....
Post the words of the Pope. As your source, please use a reputable CATHOLIC one. I ROUTINELY have to spend my time debunking the lies, inaccuracies, errors, stupidities, frauds etc issuing from sites devoted to attacking Jesus
Where I say it was JPII?
Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side...
*Also, bac, you forgot to note that Calvin taught that science was evil and forbade his followers from studying it
Good point, son.
False attacks on Galileo are meant to indict the Catholic Church as an enemy of science when it was, in fact, the Catholic Church which preserved and advanced science. In fact, the error-filled work this thread is based upon was done at a University.
Right,son
Who invented the University? The Catholic Church
Yup. Good point.
BTW, note the INELUCTABLE patern reproduced here. The topic of the thread has dissolved and something else has taken its place.
Right you are, man. It happens ALL the time
It was a Papal condemnation. The Pope, according to the Inquisition file, "directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the said Galileo and admonish him to abandon the said opinion; and, in the case of his refusal to obey, the Commissary of the Holy Office is to enjoin him...to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and even from discussing it."
As your source, please use a reputable CATHOLIC one.
You mean you want me to use one which claims the Pope is always infallible.
issuing from sites devoted to attacking Jesus
Who said anything about Jesus? We are discussing this silly notion of a man being infallible on any subject, not the Divinity of Christ.
L
What?
Melanchton was much worse than what you just posted.
Yeah. I know. I was being "nice"
OK, but don't you think it important to point out to the lurkers that OL' Mel, while he rejected science was as addicted to astrology as Nancy Reagan?
LOL True. Get a load of this...
One of the most curious features of Melanchthon's character . . . was his morbid tendency to superstition. For example, at the time of the Diet of Augsburg he wrote that several prodigious portents seemed to favour the success of Lutheranism: the bursting of the Tiber's banks, the prolonged labour of a mule, the birth of a two-headed calf were all signs which suggested Rome's ruin. By contrast, when his daughter fell ill, Melanchthon was filled with terror by the unfavourable aspect of Mars. The superstitious man never did anything without consulting astrologers.
*Huh...but, that can't be. I am always being told it was the Catholics who were the enemies of science. Well, certainly Luther's condemnation of Copernicus and Ol Mel's lunacy was an aberration...
Not so fast, Rosary-fingers...Get a load of this....
Calvin's Academy of Geneva, was based upon the protestant "insight" about "diabolica scientia,"
Science was evil? According to the protestant genius, Calvin, it was. Science advanced by Protestantism? Not so much
Hey..
What?
Don't forget Kepler, the German Astronomer.
Thanks. I almost forgot. He was prevented by protestant theologians from publishing his work.
Yep. And the weird thing is Kepler hadn't even been BORN when Pope Clement was having pleasing and positive audiences with the Catholic Canonist Copernicus about his theories...So, will these facts change anything?
LOL Son, we are talking ideology. Facts can't pierce anything as impenetrable as ideology.
I will assume you did that out of good intent and were just reading some other site which misled you.
So, please admit your error and we can continue...
The Pope ordered that 'advisory committe' to act.
L
So, please admit your error and we can continue...
Sir, I gave you an opportunity to admit your error.
Goodbye
Had I made one, I would have.
Have a pleasant day.
L
It all counts to tradition, doesn't it?
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.