infallible error!

[simonthezealot]

papal infallibility? Speculatores domus Israel

This describes a bull that was stated infallibly, yet it is in error!

I recently began reading about some bulls and this caught my eye, here are a few paragraphs regarding it. called "Speculatores domus Israel"


This is what one researcer had to say...

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papalinfallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth.
As the documents of Galileo's trial now published
show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on with all his might the
condemnation of Galileo and of the works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its own axis and around the sun.
So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633,
and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban VIII was the central figure.
Without his sanction no action could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the
Copernican theory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander
VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the
works of Copernicus and Galileo and "all books which affirm the
motion of the earth" a papal bull signed by himself, binding the
contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful.
This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally,
decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of "all books
teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the
sun."[76]

[76] See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against
the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, London, 1885, p. 94; and
for the text of the papal bull, Speculatores domus Israel, pp.
132, 133, see also St. George Mivart's article in the Nineteenth
Century for July, 1885. For the authentic publication of the
bull, see preface to the Index of 1664, where the bull appears,
signed by the Pope. The Rev. Mr. Roberts and Mr. St. George
Mivart are Roman Catholics and both acknowledge that the papal
sanction was fully given.

 

[simonthezealot]

The science described a natural law that God set in order.
The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong.
He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; This is a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) and a moral issue (insistent on one's point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?

 

[IamAdopted]

papal infallibility? Speculatores domus Israel

​

I recently began reading about some bulls and this caught my eye, here are a few paragraphs regarding it. called "Speculatores domus Israel"


This is what one researcer had to say...

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papal infallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth.
As the documents of Galileo's trial now published
show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on with all his might the
condemnation of Galileo and of the works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its own axis and around the sun.
So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633,
and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban VIII was the central figure.
Without his sanction no action could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the
Copernican theory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander
VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the
works of Copernicus and Galileo and "all books which affirm the
motion of the earth" a papal bull signed by himself, binding the
contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful.
This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally,
decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of "all books
teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the
sun."[76]

[76] See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against
the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, London, 1885, p. 94; and
for the text of the papal bull, Speculatores domus Israel, pp.
132, 133, see also St. George Mivart's article in the Nineteenth
Century for July, 1885. For the authentic publication of the
bull, see preface to the Index of 1664, where the bull appears,
signed by the Pope. The Rev. Mr. Roberts and Mr. St. George
Mivart are Roman Catholics and both acknowledge that the papal
sanction was fully given.

Seems they were really busy condemning books that had truth in them. The bible. The earth on its axis. Sheesh.

 

[simonthezealot]

from Newadvent.

Infallibility


In general,exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads....


See why this should be an issue to all whom follow her "infallible teaching"?

 

[Hap]

from Newadvent.

Infallibility


In general,exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads....


See why this should be an issue to all whom follow her "infallible teaching"?

How do you connect dogmatic teaching on faith and morals with science

 

[Hap]

The science described a natural law that God set in order.
The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong.
He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; This is a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) and a moral issue (insistent on one's point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?

Where in scripture is this science explained about the motion of the earth. I guess the Catholic Church was just following Sola Scriptura.

 

[IamAdopted]

Where in scripture is this science explained about the motion of the earth. I guess the Catholic Church was just following Sola Scriptura.

Well and where in Scripture was it that He would believe other wise? and forbid the reading of books?

 

[Hap]

Well and where in Scripture was it that He would believe other wise? and forbid the reading of books?

It is not in scripture, the bible was not written as a book of science and matters of science do not fall under infallibe teaching. As far as forbidding the reading of books could you explain, are you talking about the bible?

 

[simonthezealot]

It is not in scripture, the bible was not written as a book of science and matters of science do not fall under infallibe teaching. As far as forbidding the reading of books could you explain, are you talking about the bible?

SOOOO!
Let's see, you a forum participant knows more about infallibility than a man whom was given Sainthood and a Catholic theologian???
yeah okay!

 

[Hap]

SOOOO!
Let's see, you a forum participant knows more about infallibility than a man whom was given Sainthood and a Catholic theologian???
yeah okay!

That's a funny statement coming from you

 

[Hap]

SOOOO!
Let's see, you a forum participant knows more about infallibility than a man whom was given Sainthood and a Catholic theologian???
yeah okay!

Where does the Catholic Church state that a saint or theologian are never wrong? St. Peter himself denied Christ three times.

 

[simonthezealot]

That's a funny statement coming from you

What of me do you know?

 

[simonthezealot]

Where does the Catholic Church state that a saint or theologian are never wrong? St. Peter himself denied Christ three times.

They claim their pope is infallible and the Copernican theory oft swept under the rug proves differently.

 

[IamAdopted]

It is not in scripture, the bible was not written as a book of science and matters of science do not fall under infallibe teaching. As far as forbidding the reading of books could you explain, are you talking about the bible?

To this I was adressing with the books.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the
Copernican theory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander
VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the
works of Copernicus and Galileo and "all books which affirm the
motion of the earth" a papal bull signed by himself, binding the
contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful.
This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally,
decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of "all books
teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the
sun."[76]

And to what I stated earlier is what you said of Sola Scriptura. You said maybe he did this for this reason and I asked well is it said of the other way in scripture. I don't see that it is so how can you say He took it as sola scriptura?

 

[simonthezealot]

Alexander VII created the Papal Bull, Speculatores Dominus Israel
He stated , explicitly in the Bull:

...having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience...

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight

 

[simonthezealot]

In 1616 the Congregation of the Index -- founded by St. Pius V in 1571 and now headed by Cardinal Bellarmine acting in the name of Paul V -- was forced to take action, based on the findings of consultors to the Holy Office. Without naming Galileo, it banned all writings which treated of Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis,

"because it has come to the attention of this Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine which is false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicholas Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium and by Diego de Zuniga's On Job, is now being spread and accepted by many - as may be seen from a letter of a Carmelite Father entitled 'Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World,' printed in Naples by Lazzaro Scoriggio in 1615: in which the said Father tries to show that the doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the center of the world, and that of the earth's motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture.
​

"Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it ( the Sacred Congregation ) decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuniga's On Job, be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned, and that all other books likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited."
​

 

[Hap]

They claim their pope is infallible and the Copernican theory oft swept under the rug proves differently.

The pope is infallible on the teaching on what we call doctrine of the faith, Marian doctrine, Trinity, Resurrection. Not that the pope is sinless or cannot make a mistake like matters of science. Pope John Paul went to confession weekly.

 

[simonthezealot]

The pope is infallible on the teaching on what we call doctrine of the faith, Marian doctrine, Trinity, Resurrection.

Re:faith and morals


The science described a natural law that God set in order.
The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong.
He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; This is a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) and a moral issue (insistent on one's point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?

 

[simonthezealot]

[SIZE=+3]Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2](June 22, 1633)[/SIZE]Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture: This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

 

[simonthezealot]

But their interpretation of scripture was wrong, obviously.

And Catholics say we use personal interpretation. I guess that is better than wrong interpretaion...