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

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

As I alluded earlier, I think, the changes in view brought about by the Enlightenment were so radical that the Church was caught without an adequate philosophical response, so the 18th/19th centuries were not our most brilliant times

gosh, thomas, that's actually the closest i've seen you get to a criticism - ever! i should be very proud of myself. and "dogmatic", "dull and dry", "ducked the big issues".... well, i'm not going to make more of your statements than they really imply but you can certainly see my point.

Only by getting to grips with the new (post-Kantian) philosophies would any reasonable counter-argument come forward. As I have said before, the phenomenology etc., that developed in Europe saw a divide — Continental Philosophy as other than AngloAmerican Empiricism — and the former provides sufficient argument to refute the assertions of the Empiricists as absolute. Now, of course, we have our own philosophers who shred the arguments of Relativism ... Bernard Lonergan's General Empirical Method, or Cognitive Philosophy, for one ...

it seems to me that what is generally known as "modern orthodoxy" within judaism has had recourse to similar methodology, a lot of it coming out of places like yeshiva university where thinkers like r. norman lamm have drawn on both scholarly and traditional methods to try and define a place for the traditionally-minded in the modern world - and indeed vice-versa!

I heard a lovely story from a famous Jewish author/philosopher (an American, you will know him) who recalled growing up in Israel (on a kibbutz?) and all the men sitting round in the courtyard arguing theology from sunup to sunset ... and then one of the women came out cos one of the air conditioners had packed up, and not one of them knew what to do ...

hah, that's why the kibbutz movement is insolvent in a nutshell. i expect you mean ideology rather than theology, however (unless it was a religious kibbutz) as most kibbutzniks are a famously practical bunch - in fact the idea that they'd call an air conditioner mechanic rather than try and work it out for themselves, would take some getting used to.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (to you, young man)

hur hur hur. i didn't get where i am today (wherever that is) without a healthy dose of lèse-majésté. of course, that includes referring to sir jonathan sacks, chief rabbi of the hebrew congregations of great britain and the commonwealth, as "chiefy". then again, we often refer to the Big G as "the KBH", or for the more modern-minded, the "HBO" (short for Holy Blessed One). tush and fie.

[what constitutes a statement by 'her'? is] an interesting question, and one that could run and run ... When all the bishops are in agreement? When all the faithful are in agreement?

oh, good, so we've zeroed in on one of those things that douglas adams, of blessed memory, identified as a "rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty", as demanded by religious pundits everywhere. of course, jewish theology is one big one of those to start with.

the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the particular regard for the Blessed Virgin, has always existed in the faithful in a way that 'won't go away' — so although there is no explicit reference in Scripture to her state of grace, or to her assumption into heaven, it has always been held and believed by the people, down through the centuries. At times the Church has been wary of the Blessed Virgin assuming the status of a goddess among the faithful, and played her down ...

i can see where the way the arian dispute arose would be problematic. on the other hand, could you not find scriptural grounds to concede that something held and believed by the people (*cough* priestly celibacy *cough*) and which it might be politic to be lenient about (*cough* contraception *cough*) might be something that might assist the church in the long term?

Only a priest can perform the rite of consecration. The eucharist is then given to the eucharistic minister, the em cannot consecrate the host.

i can see where this might provide grounds for some people to stay within the church and others to get annoyed that it didn't go far enough, but yes, effectively outsourcing the labour-intensive bit would be quite a good solution.

I think the 'principles of natural law' refer to the Magisterium's right to exercise its authority, according to the principles that most people would find acceptable. The Church has only two 'domains' over which She claims authority — faith and morals — that has been the case since day one.

is that the same as saying that the church is herself an instrument of natural law?

(Without rehashing the argument, the Magisterium had accepted the theory of heliocentrism long before Galileo, Copernicus published his theory with the full support and public endorsement of Rome. What Galileo did was say that heliocentrism proved that Scripture was wrong ... )

i don't think that's right. i've read up on this recently and galileo went to great lengths to stick to the maths and steer clear of any suggestion that he might be criticising the church; the church however, was definitely claiming that heliocentrism was in contradiction of scripture, which it definitely isn't. read dava sobel's "galileo's daughter", it contains all the relevant correspondence.

You have to take into account the order of restoration and regeneration the critics were talking about, probably restructuring the Church according to the fashion of the day. The Church always measures Herself against Her foundation, the Word ... not against transitory contingency and relatively ephemeral sociopolitical conditions.

hmmm. i fail to see how the paleo-conservatism of the C19th ultramontanist tendency would be at all compatible with jesus' stated position on the poor (and not the "always with us" bit, either) - i would say that it was the condition of the church itself that was already subject to the aforementioned ephemeral sociopolitical conditions and needed to restore its scriptural foundations - spiritual underpinning, if you like.

I know! But Our Guy ruled it! (Matthew 5:19 and 19:7).

in 19:7, actually, both sides get it wrong when they say moses commanded the original command. unless jesus is suggesting that moses is slipping something of his own in (which is prima facie grounds for karet or spiritual excision) the fundamental and original Torah text has been misunderstood. moreover, the case given doesn't cover what happens if it's the wife that wants to divorce. and, either way, i just plain don't see how that is compatible with 5:17-19, but then again i probably wouldn't, being jewish. it just doesn't make sense to me, but then again i'm not christian.

Well if it does, I'm right there with the Church. 'Liberty of conscience' assumes that the individual person is superior to human nature as such ... which is a nonsense, to me.

not at all. not only has philosophy been able to adequately establish that individual liberty of conscience is inalienable (in other words, even if someone has a gun to your head you can still refuse, even though it'll mean you get shot) - but it's not about the person being "superior to human nature", every time i refuse to eat a big mac i demonstrate my superiority but about conceding that the contents of your head cannot be effectively controlled, let alone legislated. the sages recognised this in the mishnah: "everything is in the hands of Heaven - except respect for the awe of Heaven itself".

Does it? I don't think so. We have laws of libel in the secular world, should they be done away with?

oh, can open, worms everywhere, mate. are you seriously contemplating using the libel laws to protect scripture? what happens when another religious group (not even us!) sues the church because they say that the new testament is libellous? in fact, the libel laws stipulate that if something can be shown to be demonstrably untrue and doesn't come under "fair comment", it constitutes an offence. i shudder to think how any scripture would stack up to that standard without all the illustrative hermeneutics.

One line quoted from a speech by Pope Benedict, taken out of context and sent to every islamic news agency globally, got a woman shot dead within hours. Is that responsible. Was her life a fair price to pay for 'freedom of the press' — even when that press is simply concerned with stirring dischord and ferment? I mean, a world in agreement is no news, is it?

so you're saying that what the pope says shouldn't be reported? that's got very little to do with the press and everything to do with populists in the islamic world needing any excuse to get their dander up and pick a fight.

But 100 years or so later, I recall 'theologies' that had Christ as married, as in a gay relationship with St John, an open relationship with the Magdalene, and all this very damaging to the faith of simple folk ... and all of it a crock of ...

and as i recall, the church has conducted itself with considerable dignity in these cases. as much as i consider it unlikely that jesus was unmarried (that would have caused considerable comment in someone over 20 let alone 30) the people coming up with these theories are their own worst representatives imho. but as for it being "damaging to the faith of simple folk", that is at best patronising and at worst disturbingly control-freakish.

It's not freedom the Church is against, its the irresponsible exercise of freedom, and the lack of responsibility, and today more than ever it's the pursuit of personal fame ... I think you're taking an extreme position on these point, old chum.

unfortunately, i find myself forced by the current situation of anti-semitic comment, combined with the new accusation that "jewish control of media prevents free speech when it comes to criticism of jews and israel", to concede that even the right to free speech of holocaust-deniers must be upheld and that a line must be drawn between the legal permissibility of what is, to me, hate speech and the legal impermissibility of hateful action. unfortunately, this isn't terribly clear-cut as yet and hence one can only rely upon the law in a minority of cases. i am afraid that the environment for us is therefore one of extreme vituperation due to "the irresponsible exercise of freedom" - but i'm afraid i cannot concede that any religious group can be trusted to decide what constitutes responsibility in this respect.

I don't think so. It certainly speaks against violence, treason and anarchy ... again, it's a matter of context.

hmmm...except, at the time, the context was republicanism and socialism, so i think it amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?

We can, but you're just getting my opinion, not an expert view ...

you're plenty expert enough for me. besides, if an intelligentlay sympathiser can't understand it, it is hard to see why a sceptic should give it the benefit of the doubt.

But I would say the statements are not unreasonable nor illogical, but they will conflict with the prevailing philosophy of relativism, a philosophy which the Church rejects

oh, straw-mannery, thomas! just because something imputes relative value to something outside the church, that doesn't make it a case of pure moral relativisim. you must concede that there are some non-christian moral standards of which you approve and others of which you don't, where the former is "better", or "moral" and the latter is "worse" or "immoral"! surely the fact that a universal statement such as, oh, i don't know, the hippocratic oath, can establish a standard of morality without reference to catholicism indicates that not all such statements are "pure moral relativism", doesn't it?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

(Without rehashing the argument, the Magisterium had accepted the theory of heliocentrism long before Galileo, Copernicus published his theory with the full support and public endorsement of Rome. What Galileo did was say that heliocentrism proved that Scripture was wrong ... )

That is a complete and utter falsification, not just untrue but anti-true (that is, very near to the direct opposite of the truth).

The person who asserted that heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture was Cardinal Bellarmine, author of the catechism which continued to be used for centuries afterwards. And after the Galileo trial, when it became apparent that heliocentric literature continued to be printed despite condemnations, a general Bull "Speculatores Domus" was appended to an Index to make clear that not only were the particular books Indexed to be condemned, but "by virtue of our apostolic authority" the Pope (Alexander VII) "enjoined upon all the faithful the duty to abjure the pernicious Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth is subject to a double motion, a diurnal rotation about a central axis and an annual revolution about the Sun". This Bull seems to meet all the Vatican One criteria for an "infallible" declaration, and was hard for the Church to back down from.

It was not until the 1830's that an astronomy book was given an Imprimatur, which discussed heliocentrism with the heading "Modern astronomers now believe...": that is, even at that late date it was not permissible to say that heliocentrism was correct, but only to let Catholic children know what those scientists were believing. Late in the 19th century, under Pope Leo XIII, the catechisms were rewritten, quietly removing geocentrism along with other embarrassing medieval "clinkers": this is when the Baltimore Catechism took shape in America, for example. Conservatives were upset about losing the old Bellarmine Catechism, and the more right-wing successor, Pope Pius X, mollified them by declaring Bellarmine a "Doctor of the Church" (in the rarified company of Aquinas, Augustine, and a handful of others), but without any move back to dogmatizing geocentrism.

[juantoo3]

Thank you for that, Bob.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

That is a complete and utter falsification, not just untrue but anti-true (that is, very near to the direct opposite of the truth).

Hi Bob — this is typical of your anti-Catholic polemic.

Let me offer this:

In 1514 Copernicus made available to friends his Commentariolus ("Little Commentary"), a short hand-written text describing his ideas about the heliocentric hypothesis. In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus's theory. He received encouragment from Catholics as well as others, and a series of lectures were given in Rome which were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals. On 1 November 1536, the Cardinal Archbishop of Capua Nicholas Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...

Pope Clement VII (1523-34) reacted favorably, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III (1534-49), Julius III (1550–1555), Macellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-59), Pius IV (1559-65), St Pius V (1566-72), Gregory XII (1572-85) or Sixtus V (1585–1590) thought about Copernicus' theory, but as it was then a theory, there was no issue with Scripture.

In 1546 a Dominican, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, denounced the theory in an appendix to a work defending the absolute truth of Scripture. He also noted that the Master of the Sacred Palace (i.e., the Catholic Church's chief censor), Bartolomeo Spina, a friend and fellow Dominican, had planned to condemn De revolutionibus but had died before so doing.

Christoph Clavius (1537-1612) was a leading astronomer in the sixteenth century. A Jesuit, he incorporated astronomy into the Jesuit curriculum and was the principal scholar behind the creation of the Gregorian calendar. Like the Wittenberg astronomers, Clavius adopted Copernican mathematical models when he felt them superior, but he believed that Ptolemy's cosmology was correct.

By 1600 then, there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. (When Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his astronomy, but his theological writings.)

I will not address the issues raised about its condemnation. You are materially right, but polemically so biased I'm not going to bother.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
There has been much controversy over the events leading up to Galileo's trial, and it seems that each year we learn more about what actually happened. There is also controversy over the legitimacy of the charges against Galileo, both in terms of their content and judicial procedure. 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. The were also a number of political factors such as the Counter Reformation, the 30 Years War, and the problems with the papacy of Urban VIII that served as further impetus to Galileo's condemnation. (McMullin, ed. 2005) It has even been argued (Redondi 1983) that the charge of Copernicanism was a compromise plea bargain to avoid the truly heretical charge of atomism, though this latter thesis has not found many willing supporters.
I recommend one reads the whole article for a balanced viewpoint.

(Especially on the idea of what constitutes proof ... much food for thought.)

It has also been noted that his punishment, a 'house arrest', involved retirement to a sea-side villa, where he finished his writing, entertained guests ... something by which, measured against the norms of the day, the Church can be shown to act with great humanity.

One might also notice that one of Galileo's 'proofs' (in his own mind) of his system of geocentrism — the tides — was later demonstrated to be an error. For this reason Galileo did not receive the total support of his own scientific community.

For a balanced view, I recommend this reference Galileo Galilei (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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 am not defending the Church at all cost, any more than I am condemning Galileo ... all I ask is a reasoned and balanced argument, not a continual spouting of Protestant, and latterly secular, propaganda.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The summary judgment about this latter point is that the Church most probably acted within its authority

Namaste Thomas, no disrespect but... What authority?

Why does this remind me of the the Who made you king? scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

...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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by bob_x

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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".

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

b'shalom
bananabrain

Shalom l-Pesach!
X

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Bananabrain

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.

Originally Posted by Rev. George Salmon, Phd

...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