Pontifical decrees on the movement of the earth...shows papal infallibility fallible?

[Jig]

This is from: "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" by Andrew Dickson White

p.165

In 1870 a Roman Catholic clergy man in England, the Rev. Mr. Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth's Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth. This Catholic clergyman showed from the original record that Pope Paul V, in 1616, had presided over the tribunal condemning the doctrine of the earth's movement, and ordering Galileo to give up the opinion. He showed that Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, pressed on, directed, and promulgated the final condemnation, making himself in all these ways responsible for it. And, finally, he showed that Pope Alexander VII, in 1664, by his bull - Speculatores domus Israel - attached to the Index, condemning ``all books which affirm the motion of the earth,'' had absolutely pledged the papal infallibility against the earth's movement. He also confessed that under the rules laid down by the highest authorities in the Church, and especially by Sixtus V and Pius IX, there was no escape from this conclusion.

Does this mean history has shown that papal infalliablty has been shown to be wrong before? Any thoughts?

 

[tz620q]

This is from: "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" by Andrew Dickson White

You lost me right there. I suggest you read about Andrew Dickson White and his book here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White

 

[Jig]

You lost me right there. I suggest you read about Andrew Dickson White and his book here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White

Regardless of what you think of Andrew White, what of the information within the quote? None of it is his own research or conclusions. Even if you find something you dislike about Rev. Mr. Roberts and his book, I'd still like to see evidence it's conclusion is either wrong or correct.

 

[Korah]

Regardless of what you think of Andrew White, what of the information within the quote? None of it is his own research or conclusions. Even if you find something you dislike about Rev. Mr. Roberts and his book, I'd still like to see evidence it's conclusion is either wrong or correct.

No problemo.
The really dedicated papalists who champion Tradition encompassing papal infallibility applying to such encyclicals just throw back at us that Geocentrism is true. Sungenis and such unabashedly tell us that the Earth does not move.
Korah

 

[Jig]

No problemo.
The really dedicated papalists who champion Tradition encompassing papal infallibility applying to such encyclicals just throw back at us that Geocentrism is true. Sungenis and such unabashedly tell us that the Earth does not move.
Korah

So you have to believe in geocentrism and the idea that the Earth does not move in order to believe papal infallibility has never been wrong?

 

[tz620q]

Regardless of what you think of Andrew White, what of the information within the quote? None of it is his own research or conclusions. Even if you find something you dislike about Rev. Mr. Roberts and his book, I'd still like to see evidence it's conclusion is either wrong or correct.

Hmmm. I've found an electronic copy of the 1885 version of Rev. Mr. Roberts book. It is 133 pages long and filled with the Latin texts for many of the Papal Bulls that he mentions. How far do you want to go discussing this? Or would you rather discuss Papal Infallibility in general?

 

[Jig]

Hmmm. I've found an electronic copy of the 1885 version of Rev. Mr. Roberts book. It is 133 pages long and filled with the Latin texts for many of the Papal Bulls that he mentions. How far do you want to go discussing this? Or would you rather discuss Papal Infallibility in general?

I want to discuss the information found within my OP's quote. If true, this means papal infallibilty was proven fallible. I've shown a source and where I got it from...can anyone prove it's information wrong?

 

[tz620q]

I want to discuss the information found within my OP's quote. If true, this means papal infallibilty was proven fallible.

But the book you quoted from was Andrew Dickson White's. I have already shown you that this book has been discredited. So maybe I made the wrong assumption when you asked me about Rev. Mr. Roberts book. Do you want to get to the source material or do you want to use White's pro-science, anti-religion travesty?

 

[tz620q]

I want to discuss the information found within my OP's quote. If true, this means papal infallibilty was proven fallible. I've shown a source and where I got it from...can anyone prove it's information wrong?

There is a rather interesting logical conundrum that arises from this. If one accepts that the Pope is infallible, then are there other infallible humans? If not, then how can a fallible man like Rev. Mr. Roberts, make an infallible statement about infallibility.

 

[Jig]

There is a rather interesting logical conundrum that arises from this. If one accepts that the Pope is infallible, then are there other infallible humans? If not, then how can a fallible man like Rev. Mr. Roberts, make an infallible statement about infallibility.

The RCC does not think the pope is always infallible, only when "by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching." (Wikipedia, Papal infallibility)

As for your attempt to beat around the bush...I'd just like a real discussion please. Of course Mr. Roberts could have been wrong. This is why I want to investigate what he said.

 

[tz620q]

The RCC does not think the pope is always infallible, only when "by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching." (Wikipedia, Papal infallibility).

Now we are getting somewhere. I was not trying to beat around the bush; but I am unwilling to discuss this with someone using the source material you quoted. White's agenda was obvious and gets us nowhere in any meaningful discussion.

The Wiki article goes on to give the following:
"According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff" 2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….") 3. "he defines" 4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals" 5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4) "So by this definition of papal infallibility, the bulls issued are not infallible because they do not deal with doctrine concerning faith or morals. They deal with scientific theories.

As for your attempt to beat around the bush...I'd just like a real discussion please. Of course Mr. Roberts could have been wrong. This is why I want to investigate what he said.

OK, here is a link to where I found the electronic copy of the book.
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/rbkseg2.pdf

For the above reason though, I do not agree with Rev. Mr. Roberts conclusions. When Roberts published his pamphlet in 1870, right after Pastor Aeternus was published as one of the last documents from Vatican I, there was much confusion about what the true meaning of this definition of Papal Infallibility was. It seems that Rev. Mr. Roberts was one of the alarmists that applied Papal Infallibility in a very broad sense. Since then there have been several encyclicals and documents that try to clarify these restrictions on Papal authority. I call them restrictions because to define something is to restrict it to the definition agreed to. So in this way, we can see Pastor Aeternus as an attempt to clarify what Papal Infallibility was and not as an attempt to give the Pope new powers beyond what was already claimed.

If you disagree with this assessment, please show me using valid examples where I have erred.

 

[Jig]

It depends on how one defines "faith".

Lets use a Catholic source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Here is the jest of what "faith" is:

"Objectively, it [faith] stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition..."

The Papal decree disagreed that the "scientific theory" of the earth's movement was Scriptural truth or found in tradtion and the Pope was using papal infallibilty and power to objectively state this "faith".

 

[BigNorsk]

That definition of papal infallibility, if it thereby is interpreted such to exclude the papal teaching concerning the Earth, would also exclude the papal teaching of the eternal virginity of Mary. The eternal virginity of Mary is not a teaching of faith or morals and more so that the teaching of the Pope on the Earth was at the time.

 

[tz620q]

It depends on how one defines "faith".

Lets use a Catholic source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Here is the jest of what "faith" is:

"Objectively, it [faith] stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition..."

Yet from that same Catholic Encyclopedia article we have this:

"For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind."

"For a truth to be the object of an act of Divine faith, it must be itself Divine, and this not merely as coming from God, but as being itself concerned with God."

The interpretation that you have of objective faith including scientific theories might be appropriate for Fundamentalism, but that is holding the Bible up to a scientific standard that has led us to the current secular world view. Atheism triumphs when we take the Bible out of the realm of Theology and try to make it a scientific textbook. This is exactly why I reject Andrew Dickson White's book, which tried to create a conflict thesis where science and religion could not coexist amicably.

I have not found a better definition of faith than in Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

This translation translates the Greek hypostasis to "realization", not "assurance" as in the RSV. This is because hypostasis usually refers to substance or being. They have also translated the Greek elonchos to "evidence", not "inner conviction". This is because elonchos is usually translated proof. The Greek makes it evident that there is an objective faith, that forms the foundation for our own subjective faith. Also this objective faith must have as it's source and it's goal, God. I know that you see this broad definition of Catholic faith as advancing your argument; but can you honestly say that your own personal faith is based on scientific theories?

The Papal decree disagreed that the "scientific theory" of the earth's movement was Scriptural truth or found in tradition and the Pope was using papal infallibility and power to objectively state this "faith".

How can you or Rev. Mr. Roberts claim to know when the Pope is using Papal infallibility? The Pope uses Papal infallibility when it is his intent to do so within the very rigid guidelines for what can even be considered for infallible statements. There is language which suggests an infallible statement might have been made; but the final determination is intent.

 

[tz620q]

That definition of papal infallibility, if it thereby is interpreted such to exclude the papal teaching concerning the Earth, would also exclude the papal teaching of the eternal virginity of Mary. The eternal virginity of Mary is not a teaching of faith or morals and more so that the teaching of the Pope on the Earth was at the time.

I am confused here. Did you mean the Immaculate Conception of Mary? I do not know of any time when the Pope invoked Papal Infallibility to teach the eternal virginity of Mary. This does not mean that the Pope does not teach the eternal virginity of Mary, only that he has never had to use Papal Infallibility to formally define this doctrine.

 

[BigNorsk]

I did mispeak there. Since you are here, maybe you would list all the times the Pope intended to infallibally teach something.

Marv

 

[Jig]

How can you or Rev. Mr. Roberts claim to know when the Pope is using Papal infallibility?

By the same way the RCC knows.

 

[tz620q]

I did mispeak there. Since you are here, maybe you would list all the times the Pope intended to infallibally teach something.

Marv

Here is a link to a general address given by Pope John Paul II on March 17, 1993 that covers infallibility. This states the Vatican's position better than I can.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...9930317en.html

quoting from this
"As you know there are cases in which the papal Magisterium is exercised solemnly regarding particular points of doctrine belonging to the deposit of revelation or closely connected with it. This is the case with ex cathedra definitions, such as those of Mary's Immaculate Conception, made by Pius IX in 1854, and of her Assumption into heaven, made by Pius XII in 1950. As we know, these definitions have provided all Catholics with certainty in affirming these truths and in excluding all doubt in the matter."

This general address is one of the few times that a Pope has commented on when Papal Infallibility was invoked and is a sure guide that these two are most certainly accepted. The Vatican has been mostly silent on other documents, though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith now is entrusted with making decisions on modern documents as to whether they were intended to be infallible or not. The most notable case of this was involving Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which stated, "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,". The CDF ruled that this was not a usage of Papal Infallibility, since this has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

One of the reasons that the Vatican has not delved into all the past documents is that it is very difficult looking back in history to determine what the intent of the Pope at that time was. Did he intend the document to be binding on only an individual, on only a group, for only the current time or forever? Often we do not have enough information available to make that call.

 

[tz620q]

By the same way the RCC knows.

I don't see the logic here. To me there are three possibilities.

1. The Pope is not infallible and therefore all statements that he makes might contain error. This does not include Pastor Aeturnus though, since that document came from a general council (Vatican I), not from the Pope alone. So it is possible that the Pope has had a power placed upon him that he does not in actuality possess. If this is the case, then one cannot prove the Pope fallible by saying that this statement or that statement is infallible, but wrong. That is saying that you are the infallible judge of a fallible Pope. Your judgment might be wrong as well. So one must use a source of Truth that is absolute and infallible to disprove this claim.

2. The Pope is infallible in every statement he makes. This fails quickly because the Popes have said that Papal Infallibility is limited.

3. The Pope has a limited form of infallibility. This is what was claimed in Pastor Aeturnus and by subsequent Popes. Now it falls back to the following maxim, "The Popes are infallible only when they say they are. Unless specifically stated, all actions and documents are to be assumed fallible." There is more to the history of this. If you are interested in this, I will include it in another post.

 

[Jig]

3. The Pope has a limited form of infallibility. This is what was claimed in Pastor Aeturnus and by subsequent Popes. Now it falls back to the following maxim, "The Popes are infallible only when they say they are. Unless specifically stated, all actions and documents are to be assumed fallible." There is more to the history of this. If you are interested in this, I will include it in another post.

If that is the case, there is risk in following a papal decree. It may be wrong.