The Spanish Inquisition

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 9 2005, 03:03 PM'] Wow I am I would have never guessed, I mean that whole course in the History of science at that secular College must have been a cleverly designed ploy by the Church and that guy who taught it, who claimed to be an athiest I guess he was a secret Jesuit spy. Galileo was told to prove it, specificly he was told that if he could prove it that the traditional understanding of that scripture would have to be reevaluated; however he could not prove it, it couldn't be proven withthe technology available at the time. So they told him to stop teaching it, to keep his mouth shut, this was in direct reaction to the Lutherian use of Galileo's teaching to prove that the Church was not defending Scripture.

Had Galileo been able to prove it none of it would have happened, or if he had simply obeyed his own government, but he didn't and so he was forcibly silenced.


As for Trent I don't recall any canons dealing with the movment of the Earth could you please point it out? [/quote]
Yes, John,

Apparently you got some bad information in you college course. -_-

Galileo was considered a heretic for having held that the Church was probably in error in its interpretation of scripture.

Whether he was right or wrong wasn't the issue; only accepting what the Church taught as a matter of faith. (One didn't get labeled as a heretic for an astronomical disagreement, but one did for contradicting the Church's inerrancy in interpreting scripture).

A useful rule to follow in history and the law. Always employ the "best evidence" rule in evaluating historical assertions. In the case of the Church's position on an issue, that would be the official Church writing itself. That's what I used.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 06:55 AM'] Ah, yes. The "turn them over to the government to be tortured or burned at the stake so we can claim we don't do that" ploy.

Wasn't that the argument used when the English burned Joan of Arc at the stake with papal approval?

A modern form would be turning over prisoners to nations that use torture to extract information. Is moral responsibility avoided by such a practice???

LittleLes [/quote]
The English didn't Burn Joan with papal approval, what are you talking about. English bishops approved, the english however intentionally obfuscated the case from the Pope.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 07:09 AM'] Yes, John,

Apparently you got some bad information in you college course. -_-

Galileo was considered a heretic for having held that the Church was probably in error in its interpretation of scripture.

Whether he was right or wrong wasn't the issue; only accepting what the Church taught as a matter of faith. (One didn't get labeled as a heretic for an astronomical disagreement, but one did for contradicting the Church's inerrancy in interpreting scripture).

A useful rule to follow in history and the law. Always employ the "best evidence" rule in evaluating historical assertions. In the case of the Church's position on an issue, that would be the official Church writing itself. That's what I used.

LittleLes [/quote]
Well Littleles that was sarcasm... you see I have read all of the pertiant documents, and either you are not very good at reading or you are being deliberately obtuse, Galelio was Charged only after he admitted he couldn't prove his claims and then on after repeated attempts to get him to stop teaching it. He wasn't "concidered" a heritic he was charged with heresy, you really should work on your terminology.


Oh and that you for your advise on historical documents I will remember that when I go back for my doctorate in history. -_- Butthe documents you sighted are quite irrelevant to my point which was that Galileo simply could not prove his position and due to political pressures of the day was told to stop teaching it unless he could prove it, he could not do the former and he would not do the latter and so he was silence.

You take the very same tact as most people who are already convinced of their position you dismiss counter points, you don't respond to them, you dismiss them. Thats not a debate that is just carp.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 07:28 AM'] The English didn't Burn Joan with papal approval, what are you talking about. English bishops approved, the english however intentionally obfuscated the case from the Pope. [/quote]
Hi John,

You may be correct, although I've read that the Pope was well aware and approved of the burning of Joan. I'll have to read further.

But whether it was the pope or the English biships isn't the issue at hand. The fact that the Church got the civil authorities to burn Joan was the point I was making.

I don't think too many moral theologians would claim that the English bishops were innocent in this case. The pretense that the Church never authorized torture or burning at the stake for purported heretics because it, for the most part, got the civil authorities to do it is not tenable.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 07:53 AM'] Well Littleles that was sarcasm... you see I have read all of the pertiant documents, and either you are not very good at reading or you are being deliberately obtuse, Galelio was Charged only after he admitted he couldn't prove his claims and then on after repeated attempts to get him to stop teaching it. He wasn't "concidered" a heritic he was charged with heresy, you really should work on your terminology.


Oh and that you for your advise on historical documents  I  will remember that when I go back for my doctorate in history. -_-  Butthe documents you sighted are quite irrelevant to my point which was that Galileo simply could not prove his position and due to political pressures of the day was told to stop teaching it unless he could prove it, he could not do the former and he would not do the latter and so he was silence.

You take the very same tact as most people who are already convinced of their position you dismiss counter points, you don't respond to them, you dismiss them. Thats not a debate that is just  carp. [/quote]


Your "counterpoints" are arguments beside the point and should not be used to obscure what really occurred. Such are called "apologetics tap dancing."

Once again, Galileo's "heresy" in holding a view contrary to the Church's (then) interpretation of scripture is the central issue which is very clearly stated in Galileo's condemnation. Whether he could prove his theory was not the issue. Even if he could, the proof would have been rejected on doctrinal grounds. Please reread the condemnation itself (see above).

Ps. 104:5 "You (God) fixed the earth on its foundation never to be moved." The Church was into the inerrancy of scripture at that point in time, and believed that it was infallible in its interpretation of scripture. (Again, see Trent's and Vatican I's decrees on scripture). This is but one example of that error.

I hope that in the future you will be more careful and stick to the primary sources and the plain meaning of words when you work on your doctorate in history.

LittleLes

Edited May 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 10:01 AM']

Your "counterpoints" are arguments beside the point and should not be used to obscure what really occurred. Such are called "apologetics tap dancing."

Once again, Galileo's "heresy" in holding a view contrary to the Church's (then) interpretation of scripture is the central issue which is very clearly stated in Galileo's condemnation. Whether he could prove his theory was not the issue. Even if he could, the proof would have been rejected on doctrinal grounds. Please reread the condemnation itself (see above).

Ps. 104:5 "You (God) fixed the earth on its foundation never to be moved." The Church was into the inerrancy of scripture at that point in time, and believed that it was infallible in its interpretation of scripture. (Again, see Trent's and Vatican I's decrees on scripture). This is but one example of that error.

I hope that in the future you will be more careful and stick to the primary sources and the plain meaning of words when you work on your doctorate in history.

LittleLes [/quote]
It is not irrelevent because the proof had it been there would not have been rejected and Galileo was plainly told so, but there was no proof.

And agian I ask you to point to a paragraph in either of those Councils Canons which speaks to the movement of the Earth. I don't recall one either place

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 09:50 AM'] Hi John,

You may be correct, although I've read that the Pope was well aware and approved of the burning of Joan. I'll have to read further.

But whether it was the pope or the English biships isn't the issue at hand. The fact that the Church got the civil authorities to burn Joan was the point I was making.

I don't think too many moral theologians would claim that the English bishops were innocent in this case. The pretense that the Church never authorized torture or burning at the stake for purported heretics because it, for the most part, got the civil authorities to do it is not tenable.

LittleLes [/quote]
Um... which pope? The French pope or the pope in Rome... or was this during the scary days of the third pope?

Obviously if you're citing the French pope the English would have done whatever they pleased regardless of him because they weren't following a French pope. If you're citing the sitting pope in Rome, well, the English supported him so it goes to reason that he would support right back.

Technically, all of them were declared anti-popes. But it is crucial that a date be given so it can be determined which pope you speak of. Since Joan's death was during the Hundred Years War.

And why bring up the pope at all, the Church didn't "get" the civil authorities to do their work, the church officials tried to keep Joan alive (despite the fact that they were English and she was French). She recanted her repentence and the civil authorities stepped in as was appropriate for the time.

Now Jan Hus... there's a burning at the stake. If you're going to use an example, use a correct one.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 10:18 AM'] It is not irrelevent because the proof had it been there would not have been rejected and Galileo was plainly told so, but there was no proof.

And agian I ask you to point to a paragraph in either of those Councils Canons which speaks to the movement of the Earth. I don't recall one either place [/quote]
No. What you are looking for are the Decrees on Scripture which rules how it should be interpreted, ie as the Church has and does interpret scripture.

There need not be a ruling on each book, chapter, and verse.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 12:05 PM'] No. What you are looking for are the Decrees on Scripture which rules how it should be interpreted, ie as the Church has and does interpret scripture.

There need not be a ruling on each book, chapter, and verse. [/quote]
Well then please elucidate me and tell me specificly which paragraph in either of those councils you are speaking of... please be specific.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 10 2005, 10:30 AM'] Um... which pope? The French pope or the pope in Rome... or was this during the scary days of the third pope?

Obviously if you're citing the French pope the English would have done whatever they pleased regardless of him because they weren't following a French pope. If you're citing the sitting pope in Rome, well, the English supported him so it goes to reason that he would support right back.

Technically, all of them were declared anti-popes. But it is crucial that a date be given so it can be determined which pope you speak of. Since Joan's death was during the Hundred Years War.

And why bring up the pope at all, the Church didn't "get" the civil authorities to do their work, the church officials tried to keep Joan alive (despite the fact that they were English and she was French). She recanted her repentence and the civil authorities stepped in as was appropriate for the time.

Now Jan Hus... there's a burning at the stake. If you're going to use an example, use a correct one. [/quote]
Lets not lose cite of Ordo's seeming assertion, ie., that the Church was not responsible for the torture or burning at the stake of alleged heretics.

Are you denying that Joan of Arc was convicted of heresy and turned over to the civil authorities to be put to death by members of the Catholic hierarchy?

And I'd like to see you documentation that Church officials tried to keep Joan alive.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 09:50 AM'] Hi John,

You may be correct, although I've read that the Pope was well aware and approved of the burning of Joan. I'll have to read further.

But whether it was the pope or the English biships isn't the issue at hand. The fact that the Church got the civil authorities to burn Joan was the point I was making.

I don't think too many moral theologians would claim that the English bishops were innocent in this case. The pretense that the Church never authorized torture or burning at the stake for purported heretics because it, for the most part, got the civil authorities to do it is not tenable.

LittleLes [/quote]
don't have to read very far, the pope was appealled to but was never told or consulted.


this is from the Catholic encyclopedia----Twenty-four years later a revision of her trial, the procès de réhabilitation, was opened at Paris with the consent of the Holy See. The popular feeling was then very different, and, with but the rarest exceptions, all the witnesses were eager to render their tribute to the virtues and supernatural gifts of the Maid. [color=red]The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church.[/color] Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear, and it speaks well for the sincerity of this new inquiry that it could not be made without inflicting some degree of reproach upon both the King of France and the Church at large, seeing that so great an injustice had been done and had so long been suffered to continue unredressed. Even before the rehabilitation trial, keen observers, like Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini (afterwards Pope Pius II), though still in doubt as to her mission, had discerned something of the heavenly character of the Maid. :

[peach_cube]

Keep in mind in 20 more pages of this thread Leslie will be repeating the same carp that you thought you showed was wrong.


Les has a knack for giving unnaturally long life to threads.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 12:36 PM'] Lets not lose cite of Ordo's seeming assertion, ie., that the Church was not responsible for the torture or burning at the stake of alleged heretics.

Are you denying that Joan of Arc was convicted of heresy and turned over to the civil authorities to be put to death by members of the Catholic hierarchy?

And I'd like to see you documentation that Church officials tried to keep Joan alive. [/quote]
Provide your documentation first as you have been asked numerous times already. I'll research mine.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 12:20 PM'] Well then please elucidate me and tell me specificly which paragraph in either of those councils you are speaking of... please be specific. [/quote]
Sure, Don John,

Vatican I, Session 3, 24 April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2, Revelation # 8:

"Now since the decree on the inspiration of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decress and declare it meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals belonging as they do to establishing christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. It is not permissable for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

See also Chapter 3, On Faith # 8:
Wherefore by divine and Catholic faith all these things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God found in the scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed whether by solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

Specific enough, Don?

Edited May 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Wow littleless, you are aware that St. Joan died well before 1870 right?


Try a little closer to her timeframe for your stuff... unless you're trying to apply the future to the past. (Interesting theory I suppose).