The Spanish Inquisition

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 10 2005, 07:53 PM']

The infallibility of the Church's interpretation of scripture, not scientific infallibility, is the issue. We are dealing with a matter of faith as the document itself states. Vatican I's decree on scripture is also dealing with a matter of faith. Again, lets look at the Church's condemnation and note the meaning of the words.

"1 The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and FORMALLY HERETICAL; BECAUSE IT IS EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURES." (Emphasis is mine)."

"2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, AT LEAST ERRONEOUS IN FAITH." (Emphasis is mine).

The inerrancy of scriptures and faith and heresy (a sin against faith, not science)are clearly stated by the Holy Office to be the issue.

But since there can be no reasonable dispute as to the facts - the Church document itself records them - an apologist's only rebuttal is to try to argue that this was really not a matter of faith after all in spite of the Church's claim. Clearly, by the very wording of the condemnation, it can be seen to have been so. [/quote]
No the infallability of interpretation of Scripture on matters of Faith and Morals is all that is claimed, the infallability on matters scientific is not claimed at all. Galileo was suspect of heresy because of his rejection of the scientific understanding of the Scripture without the ability to prove it. I will tell you in the scientific community today one will meet much the same response as one did then if one denies a scientific dogma without proof. It is just that now Physicist arn't running the government. Still the Church never claimed scientific infallability which is what you are agueing, the fact that a Churchman may or may not have said it was a matter of Faith is immaterial, the " Church" did not--- no declaration of such was made by any offical organ of the Church, no Bull says it, no Council declared it, nothing. THat is why I asked you for a referance and you give me Vatican I's declaration of the infallability of the Churchs understanding of SCripture on matters of Faith and Morals. DO you think that the bishops who wrote that where stupid? They knew that Earth revolved around Sun ( technically it is properly refered to as Sun or if you perfer Sol not "the sun") before that was ever written, they also knew well of the Galileo issue, even if you don't believe in Counciller insperation at all, or even in God at all do you really believe the Bishops would have made a Claim so easily countered? The Decree does not, nor was it ever intended to claim infallable interpretation of Scripture in matters of Science, the church can infact be wrong on those areas, and in this case she was( unless you want to argue some really weird physics in which case I can 'prove' that Earth in fact stays still and the rest of the universe is moveing, realitivity theory allows for that, Newtonian physics does not but Realitivity does. According to Realitivity all points of referance are equally valid, if you want to manipulate the equations a bit you can "prove" the moon goes faster than light too.) So we acknowledge that; so what, no claim to infallability on interpretation of scpritures in matters of science is made here so your position is untenable. ( of Course Realitivity as said before allows for a strict interpretation to be ' correct' but I am not argueing that now it seems to me that it is one of those areas that Realitivity starts to move into the realm of the silly.)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 10 2005, 10:44 PM'] [QUOTE]

Littleles,

Why do you ignore the fact that this document specifically states "vehemently SUSPECTED"? (emphasis mine)To me, suspected is very different from being condemned Everything is suspected...a doctrine which is false...contrary to Holy Sriptures. Maybe I'm absolutely blind but there is no EXPLICIT statement that it is a heresy. When read as a whole, not individual sentences, it seems simply a reprimand, not condemnation. [/QUOTE]


The use of the term "vehemently suspected" is to allow the accused the opportunity to retract his statement. Which when faced with torture, Galileo did. Smart move!

If the Holy office had said he was guilty of heresy, Galileo would have been burned at the stake. But he was on friendly terms with the Pope, so they gave him a break.

Edited May 11, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 08:30 AM'] No the infallability of interpretation of Scripture on matters of Faith and Morals is all that is claimed, the infallability on matters scientific is not claimed at all. [/quote]
No. The indictment of Galileo is very specific. He suggested that the Church's interpretation of scripture was in error. This is a matter of faith, not science.

That a scientific principle was involved is beside the point. It was the questioning of scripture after it had been interpreted by the Church that was the issue. His claim that the earth moved and the sun didn't circle the earth contradicts what is said in a number of passages of scripture.

The story of the sun stopping "in its course" in Joshua and the earth being set upon its foundations never to be moved in Psalms are perhaps the best know passaged that Galileo's theory questioned.

It was "that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons"

Whether his opinion had a scientific, or mathematical or artistic, or any other basis is beside the point. It was contrary to what had been declared and defined as contrary to scripture, and was, therefore heretical, that is, contrary to faith.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 08:30 AM'] DO you think that the bishops who wrote that where stupid? They knew that Earth revolved around Sun ( technically it is properly refered to as Sun or if you perfer Sol not "the sun")  before that was ever written, they also knew well of the Galileo issue, even if you don't believe in Counciller insperation at all, or even in God at all do you really believe the Bishops would have made a Claim so easily countered? [/quote]


Please note that Vatican I was only restating the teaching of Trent from 1563. The Galileo matter occured in 1630. So, no, the Trent's members, who made the infallible statement initially, didn't anticipate the conflict.

I don't think that the bishops were "stupid" but very mallible and did what Pius IX told them. That's how he himself becamse "infallible" by their majority vote. Of course, if they hadn't so voted and the measure carried, they would be heretics and out of a job.

Vatican I, not wanting to publically admit that an error in Trent's teaching was probable, simply stuck with Trent's teaching. In fact, it was only with Vatican II, that the "faith and morals" claim was modified not to include all issues of faith and morals.

Also overlooked by both Trent and Vatican I, was the Church's scripturally based moral approval of chattel slavery. (The form in which slaves are the propety of their owners and all their offsprig are slaves also).

LittleLes

Edited May 11, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 10 2005, 10:32 PM']

That would be six, count 'em six attempts at HIJACKING the thread. Take it from someone who knows how to handle brother Littleles....keep him on topic. Spanish Inquisition. That is the topic...not SPAMISH Inquistion, which is what he is putting you through. Just some advice.

Cam [/quote]
I get it. If I don't respond I'm dodging the question. But if I do, I'm hijacking the thread. Is that it?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 11:25 AM'] I get it. If I don't respond I'm dodging the question. But if I do, I'm hijacking the thread. Is that it? [/quote]
No, that is not it....if you would respond to the topic rather than attempting to mislead onto a tangential argument, things would be find.

However, you don't do that. You purposely lead into tangents in order to "muddy the waters." I see through you....

Like I said on another thread, I am not going to engage you again. You are not honest about what you do here.....you are intentional in your misleadings....

When you decide to be honest again, perhaps I will re-engage, until then, I will simply expose you for the sham you are.....

Charity is telling the truth....

Cam

[philothea]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 11 2005, 01:21 PM'] However, you don't do that. You purposely lead into tangents in order to "muddy the waters." I see through you....
[/quote]
I have noticed when LittleLes gets into a topic, it's no longer worth reading .

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 11:19 AM']

Please note that Vatican I was only restating the teaching of Trent from 1563. The Galileo matter occured in 1630. So, no, the Trent's members, who made the infallible statement initially, didn't anticipate the conflict.

I don't think that the bishops were "stupid" but very mallible and did what Pius IX told them. That's how he himself becamse "infallible" by their majority vote. Of course, if they hadn't so voted and the measure carried, they would be heretics and out of a job.

Vatican I, not wanting to publically admit that an error in Trent's teaching was probable, simply stuck with Trent's teaching. In fact, it was only with Vatican II, that the "faith and morals" claim was modified not to include all issues of faith and morals.

Also overlooked by both Trent and Vatican I, was the Church's scripturally based moral approval of chattel slavery. (The form in which slaves are the propety of their owners and all their offsprig are slaves also).

LittleLes [/quote]
THe statement makes no Claim to scientific infallability, ergo it is not wrong. Was Galileo was Charged with heresy, yes, was that Charge improper, perhaps. However, that is another issue entirely, The Fact is that the Church made no claim to be infallable on scientific matters and so if Her interpretaion of Scriptual issues on Matters of Science was incorrect that in no way invalidates the statment on interpretation on matters of Faith.
However I would point out that Galileo was wrong his Philosophy was wrong and his Science was wrong, Sun moves, and as I said Earth can be shown quite scientificly to not move at all.


Vatican II made no changes in the declaration of Infallability, it defined what Faith and Morals is, it defined it in a way that contradicts what you say the Church ment and so you say the Church changed it's position, but it did not, it is precisely to define such things once they are an issue that Councils are called, the Church doesn't ever call Councils just to randomly speculate only to answer specific issues.

And your comment about Bishops being declared heretics because of there vote shows a deep lack of understanding of the Church.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 01:40 PM'] I have noticed when LittleLes gets into a topic, it's no longer worth reading . [/quote]

Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson.

Edited May 12, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 02:26 PM'] The Fact is that the Church made no claim to be infallable on scientific matters and so if Her interpretaion of Scriptual issues on Matters of Science was incorrect that in no way invalidates the statment on interpretation on matters of Faith.
[/quote]
The Church's claim to be infallible in its interpertation of scripture regarding faith and morals does not contain an exception for scientific error on the Church's part.

That the earth doesn't move was the interperetation of the scripture the Church "defined" as a matter of faith in the Galileo matter. It was not a scientific issue but a scriptural one. It was the church's infallibility in interpeting scripture that was the issue. Once again, read the Holy Office document itself.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:20 PM'] The Church's claim to be infallible in its interpertation of scripture regarding faith and morals does not contain an exception for scientific error on the Church's part.

That the earth doesn't move was the interperetation of the scripture the Church "defined" as a matter of faith in the Galileo matter. It was not a scientific issue but a scriptural one. It was the church's infallibility in interpeting scripture that was the issue. Once again, read the Holy Office document itself.

LittleLes [/quote]
umm I have and as i said you are trying to backwards enginner the issue, which is false. While the accusation agianst Galileo may have been on improper grounds, which I have already said may or may not be the case that is a differant discussion altogether( ( I am not conceding that, just saying it is a differant debate) I am saying that the Churchs claim to infallability with regards to Scripture is in no way invalidated, as the supposed error was niether in the realm of Faith or of Morals but of Science. That the charge was made agianst Galileo over the interpretation of Scripture is not being contested, the fact that the Church did not err in Her interpretation of Scripture in matters of Faith and Morals is what you are contesting. However she did not, because there is no claim to infallability in scientific matters.

Now all of that being said Galileo was not condemned because of his Scientific theories but because he attacked philosophy and tried to create new Theology, If you would care to look at the very document that you have quoted you will see it is that for which he is Charged, his philosophical absurdities. He crossed the line between the two and was thus condemned by the Church quite accordingly.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:11 PM']
Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson. [/quote]
Or the Pope....

I'd be willing to bet that Weakland and Mahony are on your Christmas list though...

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 11 2005, 09:11 PM']
Especially if the evidence I present conflicts with your belief system, eh.

I have few fans among the traditionalists and very conservative Catholics. I guess I won't be getting fan letter from Mel Gibson or his father, Hodding Gibson. [/quote]
your not challenging our belief system you are disputing it, challenges require compelling arguements which you are not presenting. You are simply harping on an issue which has been answered decades ago.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 12 2005, 09:27 AM'] your not challenging our belief system you are disputing it, challenges require compelling arguements which you are not presenting. You are simply harping on an issue which has been answered decades ago. [/quote]

But never answered adequately. Just repeatedly.

If some people keep repeating the same error over a long period of time, does that make it "Tradition" or just extended "lets pretend it isn't so"?

Edited May 12, 2005 by LittleLes

[ardillacid]

"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."-St. Augustine