hans kung, papal infallibility, vatican 2 and so on...

[bob x]

...the charge of Copernicanism was a compromise plea bargain to avoid the truly heretical charge of atomism...

By the way, you forgot to mention the ban was lifted in 1822, and that Pope John Paul II famously apologised for the condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo in 1992, and stated publicly that the Vatican was in error.

I find it extraordinarily funny that believing in "atoms" was considered to be even worse (on what possible scriptural grounds, do you know?)
I did not "forget" to mention what happened in 1822, I just mis-remembered the date as being in the "1830's" rather than "1820's". The ban was only "lifted" to the extent that books could now be given the Imprimatur if they carefully described heliocentrism as "what scientists believe", though not if heliocentrism was taught to be true.
While the posthumous condemnation of Copernicus and the trial of Galileo have been apologized for, there remains the sticky matter of the "infallible" Bull condemning belief in the rotation and revolution of the Earth. This the Church cannot admit to have been "in error" without admitting that the papal infallibility doctrine itself is "in error".
I did encounter a Catholic apologist on another board who tried to grapple with the Bull. He said that "infallibility" did not apply because Popes can only speak infallibly about "questions of faith and morals" and this was a question of science. However, it WAS believed to be a question of faith and morals at the time: "One who denies that Abraham had two sons, although Scripture tells us that he did, is as guilty as one who denies that Christ was born of a virgin, for the same Holy Spirit tells us both, and denying the veracity of the Holy Spirit is a blasphemy" (Cardinal Bellarmine). So: the Pope thought that he was speaking ex cathedra but he was mistaken about that? How then can we possibly tell whether the Pope is really speaking ex cathedra when Popes can be fallible even about that? Recent Popes have believed that they were speaking about "questions of faith and morals" when they addressed abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, but maybe, just like poor clueless Pope Alexander, they were just speaking erroneously about questions of science?

 

[bananabrain]

bob,

i can't find the text to "speculatores domus" anywhere on the web - do you know where it's available? that would assist us in ascertaining whether it's an "infallible" declaration or not. i take your point, but i believe thomas is right to point out that it's not quite as cut and dried as you seem to be making out.

The summary judgment about this latter point is that the Church most probably acted within its authority and on ‘good’ grounds given the condemnation of Copernicus, and, as we shall see, the fact that Galileo had been warned by Cardinal Bellarmine earlier in 1616 not to defend or teach Copernicanism.

strictly speaking, from the church's point of view this appears to be correct. of course, galileo went to great lengths, as far as i know, to couch his validations of copernicanism in terms of "scientists believe this and the maths appears to back it up" but steered well clear of "and i believe it too". nonetheless, the inquisition seemed to be perfectly capable of reading between the lines and not giving him the benefit of the doubt. i think, however, the point about "well, they just sent him to the seaside, rather than burning him at the stake" though well made, rather undersells the fact that galileo himself, in his letters of the time, was clearly vacillating between vexation and complete and utter terror.

it should be noted at this point that i am not so interested in going into the galileo case to the nth degree, but more in zeroing on how something gets to be infallible and how that process works and, indeed, how it is argued or subsequently defanged.

did encounter a Catholic apologist on another board who tried to grapple with the Bull. He said that "infallibility" did not apply because Popes can only speak infallibly about "questions of faith and morals" and this was a question of science. However, it WAS believed to be a question of faith and morals at the time: "One who denies that Abraham had two sons, although Scripture tells us that he did, is as guilty as one who denies that Christ was born of a virgin, for the same Holy Spirit tells us both, and denying the veracity of the Holy Spirit is a blasphemy" (Cardinal Bellarmine).

ah yes, but surely one could then argue that one can hardly take a potentially incorrect statement by the fallible cardinal bellarmine as being an authoritative, ex cathedra statement on what constitutes blasphemy. for a start, the statement that abraham had two sons is of course incorrect - after the death of sarah, he married keturah and had more children by her, so i hardly think that cardinal bellarmine is going to win any scripture knowledge prizes any time soon.

So: the Pope thought that he was speaking ex cathedra but he was mistaken about that? How then can we possibly tell whether the Pope is really speaking ex cathedra when Popes can be fallible even about that?

what thomas is saying, i think, if i understand it correctly, is that "the church", when speaking through a papal ex cathedra declaration, is infallible. it's not "papal infallibility" per se, it's really "infallibility of the 'magisterium'", which rather resembles, to my mind, the islamic idea that the consensus of scholars will never fall into error. you could, for example, counter that perhaps this is a case where the pope was in error about speaking ex cathedra, which negates the ingredient of infallibility, presumably because the pope thought he was "the church" speaking, whereas he was actually being himself at the time, whereas in a more mystical sense, if you like, the "holy spirit" had temporarily absented itself. that becomes far more of a matter of interpretation, i'd believe, whilst not in fact negating the doctrine - it just becomes a lot tougher to determine.

Recent Popes have believed that they were speaking about "questions of faith and morals" when they addressed abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, but maybe, just like poor clueless Pope Alexander, they were just speaking erroneously about questions of science?

surely, bob, you're not attempting to deny that these issues are devoid of moral content. perhaps we need to find a specific, unambiguously ex cathedra statement which is specifically, unambiguously about science, not faith and morals. then, perhaps, we have a case. otherwise, i may have to consider this a "kashya" or "toughie".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

bob,

i can't find the text to "speculatores domus" anywhere on the web - do you know where it's available? that would assist us in ascertaining whether it's an "infallible" declaration or not.

A source for the important texts here, including the Bull itself and the proclamations of the Index which it was affirming, is at:
Modern History Sourcebook: Robert Bellarmine: Letter on Galileo's Theories, 1615
(sorry, on my box I cannot for some reason create active links; it has been months since I was even able to post here at all). In any respects in which this text differs from the wordings I gave before, it is simply fallibility of my memory.

one can hardly take a potentially incorrect statement by the fallible cardinal bellarmine as being an authoritative, ex cathedra statement on what constitutes blasphemy.

But when his catechism was adopted by the Church in its entirety to teach their kids for the next couple hundred years, these views become more than just his own opinion. I will see if I can find a text of the Bellarmine Catechism, and see in particular what it says about the necessity of interpreting scriptures literally whenever there is no indication of parabolic language and no impossibility in reading it literally, or however that was actually phrased.

for a start, the statement that abraham had two sons is of course incorrect - after the death of sarah, he married keturah and had more children by her, so i hardly think that cardinal bellarmine is going to win any scripture knowledge prizes any time soon.

I was wondering if you were going to catch that!

you could, for example, counter that perhaps this is a case where the pope was in error about speaking ex cathedra, which negates the ingredient of infallibility, presumably because the pope thought he was "the church" speaking, whereas he was actually being himself at the time, whereas in a more mystical sense, if you like, the "holy spirit" had temporarily absented itself. that becomes far more of a matter of interpretation, i'd believe, whilst not in fact negating the doctrine - it just becomes a lot tougher to determine.

If there is no standard for distinguishing "infallible" statements from the others, since the Pope can be fallible about claims of infallibility, then the doctrine hardly amounts to anything more than "SOME of the Catholic teachings are true, although it's hard to tell which".

surely, bob, you're not attempting to deny that these issues are devoid of moral content.

The issue of whether to trust the scriptural authors and the traditional interpreters was also seen as fraught with moral content. NOW, from long hindsight, we can see that the important issue was really just factual misunderstanding. But the Catholic teachings on sexuality are also rife with dubious viewpoints on what the biological facts are.

b'shalom
bananabrain

Shalom l-Pesach!
X

 

[Dream]

you could, for example, counter that perhaps this is a case where the pope was in error about speaking ex cathedra, which negates the ingredient of infallibility, presumably because the pope thought he was "the church" speaking, whereas he was actually being himself at the time, whereas in a more mystical sense, if you like, the "holy spirit" had temporarily absented itself. that becomes far more of a matter of interpretation, i'd believe, whilst not in fact negating the doctrine - it just becomes a lot tougher to determine.

Consider the claimed doctrine of "Immaculate Conception." I've been thumbing through The Infallibility of the Church a book by the late theologian Rev. George Salmon. He says that the Dominicans and the Franciscans had a longstanding, intense dispute about "Immaculate Conception' around the 1400s. They were charging each other with heresy, but instead of ruling a final decision from an infallible position, Sixtus IV published a brief condemning those who said it was a heresy or that it could not be taught without mortal sin - a middle of the road approach that allowed the dispute to continue at a lower temperature. Later on in mid 16th century, Papal Legates to the ecumenical Council of Trent were told not to interfere in the dispute, because it could cause a Church division if they did. The Council of Trent also left the issue of Immaculate Conception undetermined. Salmon argues that an infallible ruling should not have caused a schizm if Catholics really believed in infallibility.

...the leading parts being taken by two powerful Orders; the Dominicans, following their great doctor, Thomas Aquinas, holding that, though cleansed from original sin before birth, Mary had been conceived in sin like others; the Franciscans, after their great teacher, Scotus, exempting her from the stain by a special act of God's power. The Dominicans went so far as to accuse the asserters of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of heresy, and even charged with mortal sin those who attended the Office of the Immaculate Conception, although that Office had been authorized by papal sanction; and they charged with sin also those who listened to the sermons in which the doctrine was preached....

On December 8, 1854 (during Salmon's lifetime), the Pope proclaimed that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was true, and also that the Church had always held it, so the Dominican point of view was always supposedly infallibly true! Its an interesting point in this discussion that the Church originally wouldn't rule for fear that the members might divide over the ruling. Salmon asks how could there be danger of a schism once truth had been determined by an infallible authority? Didn't the members and the Council believe in infallibility?

This is all based upon a section of Salmon's book. I'm not saying that I've personally researched all of these facts, but Salmon's book has been re-printed many times and is highly recommended. He was the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.

 

[Thomas]

Well, a while ago I said I was too busy to post here. Time has relaxed its grip on me momentarily, so I shall rejoin. Allow me to present this.

It's from John Henry Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine"

Moreover, it must be borne in mind that, as the essence of all religion is authority and obedience, so the distinction between natural religion and revealed lies in this, that the one has a subjective authority, and the other an objective.

Something to think about.

Revelation consists in the manifestation of the Invisible Divine Power, or in the substitution of the voice of a Lawgiver for the voice of conscience. The supremacy of conscience is the essence of natural religion; the supremacy of Apostle, or Pope, or Church, or Bishop, is the essence of revealed;

Again ... and it is clear in Scripture that such authority was given the Apostles, and via them to their successors. If you don't like the idea, then don't be a Catholic.

It may be objected, in deed, that conscience is not infallible; it is true, but still it is ever to be obeyed. And this is just the prerogative which controversialists assign to the See of St. Peter; it is not in all cases infallible, it may err beyond its special province, but it has in all cases a claim on our obedience.

That seems reasonable and logical.

"All Catholics and heretics," says Bellarmine, "agree in two things: first, that it is possible for the Pope, even as pope, and with his own assembly of councillors, or with General Council, to err in particular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human information and testimony; secondly, that it is possible for him to err as a private Doctor, even in universal questions of right, whether of faith or of morals, and that from ignorance, as sometimes happens to other doctors.

I thought it was doubly apposite that the Cardinal should refer to Bellarmine in his argument. Not quite so cut and dried as somme might wish to represent him ...

Next, (Bellarmine continues) all Catholics agree in other two points, not, however, with heretics, but solely with each other: first, that the Pope with General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality; secondly, that the Pope when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether by himself or with his own particular Council, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful."

Probably the crux of the matter ... but again the rule should be, if you don't like it, don't do it.

(Newman continues) And as obedience to conscience, even supposing conscience ill-informed, tends to the improvement of our moral nature, and ultimately of our knowledge, so obedience to our ecclesiastical superior may subserve our growth in illumination and sanctity, even though he should command what is extreme or inexpedient, or teach what is external to his legitimate province.

+++

To go back to the original discussion with bananabrain, one might infer that Küng got annoyed because his doctrine was not imported wholesale — so in one sense he's nose was put out of joint because he was not treated as infallible, which he apparently thinks he is?

Anyway ...

As I have stated, this began with a discussion of Küng and the Council of Chalcedon. I think I have made my point there. What I am not inclined to do is respond to every critic and every criticism that can be laid at the Church's door. I am ready to admit we have faults, and we've made errors of judgement ... I do not feel any requirement to rehearse them for the entertainment of others.

God bless all, on this day, the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lord,

Thomas