The Interpretation of Scripture

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]No Eremite,

The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case[/quote]

Did I not say just that? My exact words, verbatim:

[quote]Was the Church wrong? Yes. [/quote]

[quote]Apologists trying to save the day then claim that this was only a mistake of the ordinary magisterium and hence not really an infallible teaching after all.[/quote]

There's no need to "save the day", because it's a fact. And you have not responded to what I posted. Please, don't keep giving one line responses that don't address the actual arguments.

It is a matter of historical fact that Pope Paul V did not address the matter himself, because he had no intention of exercising his supreme Apostolic authority. Furthermore, he did so at the suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the greatest Saints in Church history. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope purposely did not exercise his infallible authority. I have further proven that the Church admits the possibility of error in her ordinary Magisterium. Because Paul V explicitly left the matter to be dealt with by the Ordinary Magisterium, without invoking the his infallible authority, there is absolutely no problem posed with the Church putting forward an erring interpretation of Scripture.

[quote]Vatican I's "infallible" teaching on the Church's "must hold as true" interpretation of scripture.[/quote]

Yes, it must. Even non-infallible teachings necessitate a "religious submission of intellect and will". They differ from infallible teachings in that they can be amended by the Church.

[quote]Thus a error in the Church's interpretation of scripture became a matter of record[/quote]

I have already said this, and have already show why it poses no problem for Catholic theology.

[quote]It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.[/quote]

Pope Urban presents a different story:

"Pope Urban VIII received Galileo with great honor on six separate occasions when he was in Rome in 1624, and stated 'that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so,' though he immediately added 'that there was no erason to fear that a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming" (Carroll, "The Cleaving of Christendom", pp. 537)

It's interesting that for a doctrine so firmly, and infallibly believed by the Church, a personage such as Pope Urban VIII would speak in such ways of it. The condemnations of the Inquisition came after a falling out with Galileo, but as already layed out, were purposely issued without the infallible authority of the Pope. Furthermore, Carroll cites another authority:

"In the words of Petro Redondi (no friend of the Church) 'this heresy was inquisitorial--that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal--both according to the words of criminal heresiology of the period and as reported by the most serious juridical scholars of the affair'" ("The Cleaving of Christendom", pp. 539)

[quote]It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.[/quote]

You need to break out of this modus operandi whereby you give one sentence responses to what we write, repeat your opinions ten times, and then do the hokey poke exclaiming how you've "proven" your argument. You haven't proven anything. I have quoted one historian and one relevant Magisterial document on the nature of the Ordinary Magisterium. You haven't responded to anything I've written. It's growing tiring.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]No Littleles, your assumption is incorrect. You are applying the concept of infalliblity to a position where it is outside of its scope. Infallibility does not apply to anything other than faith and morals.[/quote]

The condemnations of the Inquisition go beyond the scientific theory, but rather, address the proper interpretation of Scripture, which is within the Church's authority to do. So it's correct that they were not infallible, but not because of the scientific theory, but because there was explicitly no intention on the Pope's part to invoke infallible authority. Had the Pope addressed the matter himself, it would probably be a different story. The Spirit of God has a way of preventing things like that though.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite,

You are showing promise. Of course the issue in the Galileo matter involved the interpretation of scripture. Some apologists try to say faith and morals were not involved. But the plain meaning of words in the Condemnation itself makes it clear that the central issue was the Church's interpretation of scripture and that's squarely in the "faith" area.

However, let me make one point clear. The infallibility involved was not papal ex cathedra. It was by way of both the Extraordinary Magisterium (ie an ecumeniccal council) and the constant teaching of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

And poor Apotheoum and Jmjtina would have been most distrubed that all those theologians, scripture experts, and members of the Holy Office despite all their degrees in theology, were flat wrong in what they taught! The earth does move!!!!



LittleLes

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[jmjtina]

This is really confusing and frustrating. All I read is your personal opinion and interpretation, opening threads without answering the ones you left open and unanswered (from Cam and Todd) and no proof that you actually know what you are talking about.

There needs to be some kind of understanding before we can even move on.

God Bless.

As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

[jmjtina]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp"]The Galileo Controversy[/url]


It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.


Anti-scientific?



The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.


Clinging to Tradition?



Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.


Galileo "Confronts" Rome



Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.


Tortured for His Beliefs?



In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.


Infallibility



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.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]It was by way of both the Extraordinary Magisterium (ie an ecumeniccal council) and the constant teaching of the Church, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.[/quote]

First of all, I have no idea what you are referring to in regard to the Extraordinary Magisterium. No ecumenical Council dealt with the matter. The Inquisition is a Roman congregation, not an Ecumenical council. Furthermore, This is not a matter of the constant teaching of the Church, because as I pointed out, Pope Urban VIII had no problem with Galileo's thesis in theory, so long as he didn't present it as fact. The condemnation of the Inquisition came after Galileo insulted his longtime friend, Urban VIII. As I have already layed out in great detail, a condemnation from the Inquisition is not infallible, as is evidenced by historian Warrenn Carroll and Petro Redondi, whom he cited. You have yet to provide a single argument from ANY sources that a judgement from the Inquisition was and is regarded as an exercise of the Church's infallible Magisterial authority.

[quote]And poor Apotheoum and Jmjtina would have been most distrubed that all those theologians, scripture experts, and members of the Holy Office despite all their degrees in theology, were flat wrong in what they taught! The earth does move!!![/quote]

The ire of the Inquisition was over Scripture, not science. That is, their objection was NOT to Galileo's scientific theories, but what they perceived as an attack on the inerrancy of Scripture. Of course, there were quite a few who admitted the POSSIBILITY that Scripture was not to be taken literally in this particular case, among them Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, and Pope Urban VIII, all the relevant figures involved in this discussion.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[jmjtina]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 13 2005, 11:29 AM'] And poor Apotheoum and Jmjtina would have been most distrubed that all those theologians, scripture experts, and members of the Holy Office despite all their degrees in theology, were flat wrong in what they taught! The earth does move!!!!
[/quote]
Wow, I don't know if this is arrogance, or ignorance, or both.

same old argument, new person to discuss it with. 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.

God Bless.

[Cam42]

[quote]Condemnation itself makes it clear that the central issue was the Church's interpretation of scripture and that's squarely in the "faith" area.[/quote]

Incorrect. You are wrong. I would like to see documentation to prove that statement.

How about engaging the questions that Appy and I have asked.

Also, you are misreading Eremite if you think that he is supporting your position. While I disagree with him on the assertion that the Church is wrong, I do know that his position and yours are not the same.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Another error in the Church's scriptural interpretation was the Church's teaching on the moral legitimacy of slavery based on scripture (and natural law) arguments.

Addressing this causes a near schizophrenic response from apologists. They quickly produce papal writings which, they claim, prove that the Church never approved of slavery. However, these papal writings (1) were almost always written after 1500, and (2) a careful reading discloses that they condemned the slave trade, but not slavery itself.

The most recent teaching that the institution of slavery is in keeping with scripture (and the natural law) is that of the Holy Office in 1866. Even the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, which dates from 1912, still maintains that position. (See The Ethical Aspects of Slavery).

Leander, whom I believe was a Franciscan, best summed up the Church's teaching regarding the moral legitimacy of slavery in his 1668 "Questions of Moral Theology" Tome VIII, De Quarto Praecepto, . I Q.3. (No doubt many will want to check this out at their library )

"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture...All theologians are unanimous on this."

So again we have a situation in which infallibility, based on Vatican I ruling on the Church's interpretation of scripture and the constant Church teaching (until relatively recently), has proven to be in error.

Little Les

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Now that someone other than me has made this statement, would you please try and answer it?

Cam

[Cam42]

What does slavery have to do with this?

Didn't someone say something about shotgunning once?

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

Little,

You have once again refused to deal with any of our arguments in a substantive manner. And now, you want to bring up a whole new topic. You are abusing this phorum, IMO. I'm bowing out of this discussion, because I'm getting a headache from all these circles we keep traveling in.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

In Galileo's day the world, solar system, and universe had essentially the same meaning.

But once again, that is not is what is at issue. The Church, based on its interpretation of scripture (infallible via constant teaching and infallible via Vatican I decree), claimed that the earth did not move. But it does. Hence the error in the interpretation of scripture.

Little Les

[jmjtina]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 13 2005, 12:02 PM'] In Galileo's day the world, solar system, and universe had essentially the same meaning.
[/quote]
Your statement is incorrect. No teacher teaches that. But then again, alot of it is your own interpretations anyway.

Slavery is a fairly complex matter, of course. We find it a simple issue today only because we are not forced by circumstances to consider all of its aspects clearly. First, let us note that numerous passages in the Old Testament justified slavery under conditions which were designed to ensure humane treatment and (under proper circumstances) ultimate freedom.[19]
In ancient times, slavery was seen as justly arising from one of three circumstances: (1) capture in war, (2) punishment for crime, and (3) obligation for debt. Enslavement for debt would be the least reconcilable to Catholic doctrine, although the Church had to deal with it as an historical reality in Roman law, reacting prudentially in order to mitigate the evil without creating greater ones. Regarding prisoners of war, however, more deserves to be said. Biblical slavery could be seen as a reform, a lesser evil made necessary by the inability of societies to hold war prisoners in idleness due to scarcity of resources. Release of prisoners was extremely impractical when wars lasted many generations, as did Israel's wars with her hostile neighbors, the Greek struggles with the Persian Empire, or the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. Humane slavery (always a Catholic requirement) was a superior option to the suicidal release of prisoners of war, the economic impossibility of simply imprisoning war captives, or the terribly inhumane alternative of executing captured enemies.
It is important to note that the Catholic Church in past centuries did not intend to endorse authoritatively any specific instances of slavery, but only the principle that slavery could be justified as the lesser of evils in certain circumstances. The situation surrounding ancient warfare illustrates one particular application of this principle. The same notion of the "lesser evil" was also applied to the question of the status of the children of slave mothers. Note that the eminent Jesuit moralist Cardinal Juan De Lugo "found slavery 'beyond the intention of nature,' but 'introduced to prevent greater evils,’"[21] This is also a clear extension of that principle to the conveyance of the mother's status to the children.
One can easily see that if the Church had attempted to bestow freedom upon the children of slaves, owners might well have denied the right of slaves to marry, with all the attendant evils that would involve, and owners might not have properly cared for the offspring of slaves—offspring over whom they would have enjoyed no property right.
Thus, we can see the complicated case for accepting slavery as a social condition arising from prolonged periods of warfare. John Locke's justification of slavery in his late 17th-Century work, <Two Treatises on Civil Government>, contains the same rationale as has been given here.[22] It will be recalled, of course, that much of modern slavery did not so originate, since innocent and non-belligerent persons were set upon (usually in Africa) and impressed into slavery without moral justification and in the most inhumane of conditions.
Finally, classical morality accepted the legitimacy of slavery for crime. This form of slavery, it would seem, can be easily justified, and under a different name, this penal slavery is still the practice of most nations. It is not accidental that in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wrote into that amendment an exception to the prohibition on involuntary servitude. The text of the 13th Amendment states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist...." Prisoners may be compelled to work, their liberties are often seriously curtailed, and although the vast majority remain in this condition for only a limited period of time, "life without parole" is an increasingly used option, as are finite sentences of such duration as to ensure that they constitute <de jure> life imprisonment.
The change of the Church's attitude toward slavery reflects the changed circumstances of the world more than it reflects any revolution in moral theology. Wars tend to be of shorter duration in the modern world (though often of far greater severity); nations often possess surpluses out of which they can feed and care for prisoners of war who are held as prisoners rather than as slaves as would have been the case in previous times, and most importantly, perhaps, civil authorities are willing, in general, not only to abolish slavery, but to extirpate those greater evils the avoidance of which made slavery's existence permissible. In this new environment, the Church may put greater emphasis on its statements that "slavery is evil"—[u]but it had never judged otherwise[/u]. The Church had done no more than proclaim that in other sets of social and historical circumstances, slavery represented the lesser of evils.


God Bless.

[Cam42]

[quote]The Church, based on its interpretation of scripture (infallible via constant teaching and infallible via Vatican I decree), claimed that the earth did not move.[/quote]

How many times do you need to hear that you are incorrect? We have shown you this multiple times. Prove it with hard proof. You cannot. Stop. There is no infallible teaching on this matter. It does not fall into the scope of infalliblity because it does not deal with faith and morals, contrary to your uniformed opinion.

Stop your opinionating and start applying proof to your posts. To make allusion to the documents, apply them. Or are you afraid that you cannot in a logical way?

Cam