paraclete,
Keep in mind that only three times has the Pope been considered to be infallible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
|
paraclete,
Keep in mind that only three times has the Pope been considered to be infallible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred I was referring to why it came to that, without Luther it wouldn't have been considered necessary, but when the pope wanted to declare another contraversial dogma, then hey presto! And by the way I think it is only actually once.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
from Wikipedia --Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
Which theses specifically challenged this authority? I confess I don't see it, but I could be reading a faulty translation, too, and/or depending too much on LTMLV.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
dwashbur,
That is a very good question.
I hope to see the answer to it.
Fred
Perhaps you would care to read and discern the import of number 5, 6, 26, 33, 51, 73, 76, 79. All of these impune the authority of the popeQuote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I know there are several translations online. I'll check it out. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
On all Saint’s Eve, October 31, 1517, Luther posted his 95 Theses. This was the public place where it was customary to post personal views, sometimes dissenting other times in support of the Church. But, always the idea is that these views would be discussed in a public ‘disputation’ so as not to conflict with the Magisterium. But, Luther had little intent to dispute his 95 Theses.
The reason is rather obvious, in the Theses Luther doesn’t simply attack Tetzel’s defense and selling of Indulgences, but literally denounces Indulgences to bolster his heretical views of Justification by faith alone. How can you have ‘Justification by faith alone’ and still view the Scriptural verses of Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18 valid. His purpose was to usurp the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to substitute his own Church, the church of the self-proclaimed new Moses. It was an act of defiance when he posted his 95 Theses when a year earlier, in a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. Luther wrote:
“To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)
From the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correction.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:
If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)
His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences in outward appearance. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, like the boiled frog with the heat slowly increased, the faithful didn’t know they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag,
“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD. Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G. 1913)
"We Germans," writes Luther in 1532, "sin and are the servants of sin ; we live in carnal lusts and stoutly use our license up over our ears. We wish to do what we like and what does the devil a service, and we wish to be free to do only just what we want. Few are they who remember the true problem of how they may be free from sin. They are well content to have been rid of the Pope, officials, and from other laws, but they do not think on how they may serve Christ and become free from sin. Therefore will it come to pass that we shall not stay in the house, as servants do not stay in always, but we shall have to be cast out and lose again the gospel and liberty.” (Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol.1., Part 1, 1917. Pg. 27) similarly, “even In 1529, he had voiced similar sentiments. ”No one fears God, everything is mischievous … Each one lives according to his will, cheats and swindles the other," (Ibid, Pg. 27, Fn 94 Erl. 48, 389.Erl. 36, 300.)
An insidious concealment of the real political intent of the 95 Theses can be seen in Luther’s writings. Actually, the problem lies in Luther’s new religion; logically Indulgences would be an anathema to this religion. Grisar suggests that this motive is exposed in letters to George Spalatin and to Scheul in February and March of 1514. Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. 6, 1917. To Spalatin, Luther writes regarding how to handle the two princes, in vying one against the other. Luther was apparently scheming to avoid the sanctions that John Reuchlin’s naturalist views found only a few years earlier. Luther writes regarding Indulgences: “The other question concerned the power of the Indulgence, and what it can accomplish. This matter is still doubtful, but I shall say privately to you and our friends that I consider present-day Indulgences as a deceiving of souls, and of no use except as an encouragement to lazy Christians…But I shall gladly permit the Prince to lead me into a disputation, or place me on my trial, if he would openly give me a safe-conduct, but I dislike the innocent Prince being blamed on my account.” (Margaret A. Currie, The Letters of Martin Luther, 1908, Macmillan and Co. Limited St. Martin’s Street, London.) Here we see the first clues of a surreptitious political conspiracy of George the Duke of Saxony and Luther.
JoeT
JoeT,
Thanks much for that additional information.
It is VERY interesting.
Yes, obviously Luther was a schemer and a purposeful misleader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
No, Fred, Luther was an honest man in a den of thieves.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I'm sensing a little hostility on some people's parts... (not you, para).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I agree. How does the RCC explain/justify that they charged members money so God would forgive sins? Is this still being done?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
(Is this still being done)?? Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Joining the ranks of the Catholic bashers, now? Lovely, really lovely.
It's not bashing to ask an honest question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I am not a Catholic basher. You know that. Apparently, I asked my question badly. It's an honest one. My knowledge of Catholic doctrine was filtered through a conservative part of the Lutheran Church that taught me Catholics believe they must earn their salvation. My question is about indulgences -- if that is a term still used in the RCC, and, if so, what does it mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
In 1517, and, in 2010, and in 001, Indulgences have always been the purview of the Church. You might say the Church administers the wealth merited by the works of Christ and the Saints. (Cf. Mat 16:19, Mat 18:18, and 2 Corinthians 2:5-10) The sacrament of Penance removes the guilt of sin and any eternal punishment but it can't remove the just recompense for once actions. Divine Justice demands a requitement for sin; this must be paid in this world or the next, i.e. in purgatory. Too often some believe that an indulgence is both the forgiveness of sin and the remission of punishment, it's not. The problem with Luther was that he could never seem to separate the two. The Papal Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X, condemns Luther's attacks on Indulgences as “pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.” Pope Leo X outlined precisely the madness of Luther's doctrine:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
[INDEN]In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.
10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.
12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.
20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc. is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.
27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
29. A way has beeri made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful. (Source: Exsurge Domine )[/INDENT]
And Pope Leo X continues to say “Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected.” (Ibid.)
Luther, according to his 'promises,' in spite of the Pope's condemnation of his works, failing retraction of his neo-religion, Luther continued. Contrary to his own propaganda, Luther wasn't excommunicated until after the hearing before the Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Finally, Luther managed to get himself excommunicated in January, 1521: “wicked designs of misguided men, who have been so captivated by the debased impulse of their evil purposes as to forget the fear of the Lord, to set aside with contempt canonical decrees and apostolic commandments, and to dare to formulate new and false dogmas and to introduce the evil of schism into the Church of God—or to support, help and adhere to such schismatics, who make it their business to cleave asunder the seamless robe of our Redeemer and the unity of the orthodox faith.” (Source: Decet Romanum Pontificem ) Luther excommunicated himself.
In the 15th century the practice of absolving sin and guilt's reward was condemned. It found its way back in the 16th century under a few unscrupulous priests and bishops; some simply were simply overzealous attempting to raise money for the new Basilica in Rome. These men never were sanctioned under to 'sell' indulgences. However, there was a legitimate discussion of the practice in the early 1500'
Penance required by the confessor is an act of contrition usually in the form of prayers, fasting, alms-giving as a penitential work to repair a spiritual relationship with God through sin. It is different from indulgences in that it is a sacramental satisfaction, the satisfaction earned add, albeit infinitesimal small amounts, to the merits of Christ and the saints, adding to the wealth the treasure of the Church.
The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding Indulgences have not changed, she still has the powers she was commissioned with, and she still has the wealth of faith that she administers freely. It would be wrong however to say there has been no change as a result of Luther because there is one small change. It is made clear for all the faithful that Indulgences are abundantly free in the penitent's merited works in faith.
JoeT
paraclete,
That is your opinion, and very much not mine.
I'll take Luther at his own words on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Martin Luther tried to clean out the pigpen , he should rather have set fire to it . Henry v11 of England had a better idea . He solved the problem of the church's medieval , paralysing , parasitic grip on his country & his rule . He took real control , did drastic surgery, removed the church , & gave us the start to our modern Western World .
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by tradjazzman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tradjazzman
I wouldn't have said it in these terms.
Perhaps we could say that Luther contributed greatly to the idea of separation of church and state. Luther argued for a distinction between civil and spiritual matters. This idea was taken up by subsequent liberal thinkers.
Whether Luther set out to destroy the RCC is a matter of debate. However, it was inevitable there was going to be a separation at some stage.
Tut
Of course I meant Henry v111 of England , thank God for him , if there is a god... tradjazzman
I think we attribute too much to any one person(s), whether it be Henry v111 or Luther. The wheels of change were already set in motion with the advent of the Reformation. Luther and Henry were important historical people of the time but they did not have the power to bring down any church, regardless of their motives.
The RCC decline in power was a result of a completely revolutionary way of thinking. Going was the old Aristotelian world view.It was being replaced by a scientific approach to nature, politics and theology.
When Luther claimed that every individual had an immediate relationship to God he was expressing a new world view. Based on this liberal approach to theology, such things as a persons relationship with God being mediated through the church hierarchy became unacceptable to some.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and the scientific revolution went hand in hand.
Tut
I think if you check it out the Age of Enlightenment was a little later than the Reformation, perhaps you mean the Renaissince.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
An institution such as the RCC is slow to change, even 500 years after the Reformation it stills holds, or more accurately clings, to it's traditions. The Reformation held no scientific view, it was about man's relationship to God, whereas the scientific view is that man has no need of God
True, but an argument could be made (not saying I'm making it, just tossing it out for consideration) that the wheels were set in motion by folks like Copernicus et al, ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. Such things could have set the stage, in a way, for the Reformation; by that time, all it needed was a catalyst, and Luther provided that.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Again, just an idea that came to me and I figured I'd put it on the table for discussion if anybody's interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Hello paraclete,
I think most people would be willing to attribute a minimalist interpretation to the Protestant Reformation and Science. That is to say the Reformation broke the medieval ecclesiastical control over European thought.
I would want to go further with this explanation. Therefore I would agree with dwashbur's account.
Regards
dwashbur,
Thanks for putting that ion the table for discussion.
I hope to see some on that.
Fred
Thanks for reminding us that the flat Earth society is still in operation in Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred
Fred the Flat Earth Society refers to people who hold views which don't conform to the facts, that is their traditions bind them up.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Interesting question.
Aristotle proposed that the solar system was composed of perfect crystalline spheres with the Earth being at the centre of the solar system.
Planetary motion was explained as the work of the unmoved mover.
Some of Ptolemy's ideas were later added to help explain the motion of planets. I could stand correct but I think it was Ptolemy who worked out the circumference of the earth to within two or three thousand miles. This was about 100 A.D
So great was Aristotle's "world view' that during the Middle Ages theology also reflected this idea. Aristotle's unmoved mover became an important philosophical/theological concept during this time.
The idea of the earth being flat had always been around in ancient times. Did people believed the world was flat during the formation of Christian ideas? I don't know. Scholars such as Aquinas would have accepted that the Earth was round.
Tut
I was asking that because I thought that paraclete was referring to The Church of members therein who believed the world was flat.
I thought that was rather odd considering the fact the worlds first observatory was established and built by the Vatican.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I think it is time to get us back on topicQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Luther didn't start with the intention of creating a new Church. What he obviously wanted was reform within the Church and a return to true Christian values.
The Church in Luther's time apparently and obviously held many incorrect views, this is typified by their persecution of Luther himself, Copernicus, Kepler, Galleilo as well as the Inquisition and their persecution of the Jews, and the excessive trade in relics and indulgences. The Church had become what Christ had described as a den of thieves when he purged the Temple and Luther would have been mindful of that.
There is a view that they have moved on from these times but the problems being experienced by the Church today are in fact issues that the Church has failed to deal with for centuries. They are in fact a flat Earth Society failing to see what is right in front of them. There is no refuge in apostlic succession, if you are wrong, you are wrong, whether that is the basis for salvation or false doctrine
Hello Paraclete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Very impressive summation in my view (for what my view is worth).
I think I can see what you are getting at.
It could be seen that the RCC was the 'first church' because of an unbroken philosophical/theological tradition which started with the Ancient Greeks and goes through to modern times. As far as the RCC Church is concerned, Aristotelian philosophy is still as relevant today as it was then. Of course there have been additions/subtractions to Aristotle's original works, notably by Medieval scholars. This claim requires greater explanation, but this is not possible at the moment.
The most striking example of an 'about face' by the church was the eventual acceptance of a heliocentric solar system. Interestingly enough there is no reference in the Bible to an earth centred solar system. It was no doubt the result of an 'addition' to Biblical facts.
So why was Copernicus treated so badly by the Church? Probably because it was a challenge to the Church's authority on ALL MATTERS, not just religious. Was it William Pitt who said something along the lines that power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power corrupts absolutely?
The interesting thing about philosophy before and during this period was that it represented an all encompassing theory. In other words, philosophers and theologians set out to explain both heaven and earth within one consistent epistemology(theory of knowledge).
What people such as Luther were stressing was that this is not possible. There is more than one theory of knowledge. Aristotle and subsequent theologians were wrong when it came to explanations of the physical world. Science can explain the physical world better than theology. From my point of view theology can explain the non-physical world.
However, this was not what needed changing. What needed changing was a theology which purported to cover everything, physical and non-physical. Eventually such theology/philosophy became outmoded As witnessed by the plurality of different religions today.
To hang on to the idea that one theology can criticize the physical world as being 'too liberal' is to make the same mistake as those who persecuted Galileo.
Tut
I think this is where the Church went wrong. We are followers of Christ, not Aristotle. The Bible is not about greek logic but something entirely different and if you try to apply that logic you will become confused and ultimately heretical. The statements of Jesus are completely illogical if viewed from Aristotle's stance because they stem from an entirely different curtural background. Even the jews had difficulty with what Jesus was saying. By the time of Luther the Church had migrated far away from its beginnings and was relying on a doctrine of works. It had become corrupt. Luther challenged this doctrine of works and in doing so challenged papual authority because the pope in error was promolgating this doctrine. Because he did this publicly Luther was ultimately declared a heretic but in fact the heretical teachings came from the pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I think it fair to say that some here are 'bible-only,' that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally. When we do so, many verses in the Old Testament would lead to the conclusion that the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth flat.
Now, when the subject of the Galileo vs. the Church comes up, the same self-styled literalists complain that the Pope was unfair insisting on a literal reading of Scripture. What ridicule they heaped on the Church for pushing doctrine over holy Science, but of course without considering the hypocrisy of the argument. This is especially egregious when they don't know the facts surrounding Galileo's censure, for that matter what he was really charged with – it seems many love a sensational story as opposed to truth. As you know, story revolves around the Copernican theory (the pun was intended). There is a bit of irony in the story; not only was Copernicus an astronomer, he was also a Catholic cleric.
Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess was the wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medic. Galileo later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared heretical. Father Caccini's denunciation pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. The Copernican theory doesn't permit the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in publishing his private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.
Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) he went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped and replaced with as an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, and a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense; after all everyone knew that man and his planet were at the center of the universe.
Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist tried to intervene knowing that if the Copernican theory was later found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from the time of Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator. As a result of this verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written simply stating that the theory was not proven. As insurance that Galileo would follow through, the jurists insisted on a document prohibiting Galileo from teaching his new theory. Much later this document appeared stating that Galileo had been enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.
As any good Catholic Galileo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V, Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice which was his home, where he continued his work freely until 1624.
Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so,“ but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.
The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” injunction was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition on the charge of disobeying the mysteriously reappearing injunction. The charges were eventually dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience, not of heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)
So today the literalist accuses the Church teaching by allegory as opposed to 'the Word of God'?
JoeT
Joe,
Excellent summary! Consider yourself greened, since the system won't let me give you one until I spread the love around a little more.
I would just take minor issue with one statement early in your treatise:
"I think it fair to say that some here are ‘bible-only,’ that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally."
My objection is to the phrase "more times than not." There are plenty of us who are not of that camp, and frankly some of us are embarrassed by them. The situation isn't necessarily that they are the majority of Bible-only-ers, but rather that they're the ones who make the most noise. As I said, a minor quibble. In fact, that may well have come from Sir Nitpick rather than from me; too much Vicodin at the moment makes it difficult for me to tell!
Again, thanks for that excellent summary of the Galileo matter; I don't think I've ever seen it set so fully in its historical context before, and I learned a lot.
JoeT,
Thanks much for that history lesson. It filled in gaps of my knowledge on the subject.
Like dwashbur I learned a lot.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Joe, this is exactly what Aquinas was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Aquinas spoke of the Holy Spirit as the author of the Bible, but he also paid careful attention to the literary and linguistic aspects of the Bible. He regarded all theology as 'scientific'
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM. |