Vatican forgives Galileo after only 400 years

Always one step ahead of the times, the Roman Catholic church finally forgives Galileo for trying to understand the universe and not blindly trust everything the Bible says.

Editorial, stop reading here if you're squeamish about hearing heretical and differing opinions:

In 1992, Pope John Paul had the belated wisdom to suggest Galileo's heretic status and life imprisonment sentence was an "error" and a "misunderstanding". The current Pope decided to forgive Galileo for the deadly sin of questioning church authority.

I understand that religious members here take their faith very seriously, and although we will disagree on issues, I respect our honest disagreements, because you aren't attempting to try me as a heretic against your religion. The Roman Catholic church itself, however, is irredeemable in my opinion, for it's long history of crimes against humanity and it's authoritarian control of those who simply want to worship Jesus and God.

I have slightly more respect for this Pope, however the church as an organization is as stubborn and backward as ever. I am pleased that Protestants once decided that they could serve God and also disagree with the Papal hierarchy at the same time. I am pleased that progressive reforms and moral leadership have both brought us to the point where I can walk freely down the street, never once pressured to show support to a religion I disagree with, never once forced to tithe, never once threatened for trusting science and questioning religious authority. I am pleased that I can sit here in the comfort of my own home and openly defy most everything the church teaches, and without hesitation boldly disagree whenever someone clothed in holy robes delivers their opinions, and at the end of the day, shake hands, laugh it off, and respectfully and honorably coexist with these people.

In the end, what matters most is that we respect one another's rights as human beings, and agree to disagree. When in comes right down to it, we are all human beings, and if someone or something was threatening the life, liberty, or rights of religious people, I will be on the front line defending you up and down. In my opinion, the Catholic church has a storied history of ignoring such a code, and conveniently ignores the rights of man whenever someone disagrees with them. I find much of their history distasteful, their preachings hypocritical, some illogical or self-contradictory, and their wealth and power obscene.

That being said, I appreciate the fact that most people have grown beyond the hatred, both of the irreligious and towards the religious. While I eagerly anticipate further progressive reforms of the Roman Catholic church, I still hold the opinion that the world would be better off without such a Papal authority. I know many will disagree, and perhaps they need the structure and guidance the church provides. I simply contend that there are many flawed methods, arguments, and teachings such a church can do without.

I thank you for allowing me to say this without burning me at the stake or beheading me. God Bless America, from someone who believes in only 1 out of 3.

1) Link does not work.

2) Though I agree with many of the precepts of catholicism, it is things like this which boggle my mind regarding the Papacy. I am astonished and, as a Catholic, embarrassed that it took so long for something like this.

Until 1966 there was still a list of banned books. :book:

The link works now.

Hmm, heresy is tricky. If you believe that Roman doctrine and Papal authority are necessary then heresy is very dangerous. Preaching heresy is spiritual mass-murder, which is worse than the bodily kind in such a context. The upside to heresy is that unlike bodily death it can be recanted.

In such a context the harsh punishment of heretics might seem to make a certain kind of sense, especially when death by burning was considered to purify; so that even the heretic himself might be saved.

The percieved problem with this is the question of who decides you are a heretic, the Roman Church has a history of burning people as heretics and then frantically looking for their unmarked grave a generation later in order to have something to put in the relequiy for their new church. For the uninishiated, I am talking about canonisation as saints.

Of course this isn't a problem at all for the souls concerned, after all, "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is theologically robust in its own dark way.

So the bigger issue here is that Galileo was neglected for so long before the Church finally admitted its mistake.

EDIT: This post appears to be "missed" by many, so I'll bold and underline it...

I believe Galileo was technically forgiven in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV.

Yeah, funny thing about heresy: if your own religion started as a heresy of another earlier religion (which most of them did do), what posssible leg has any heretic to stand on? Hypocrisy? Inconsistency?

Ha!

The current Pope decided to forgive Galileo for the deadly sin of questioning church authority.

How very generous of him :beam:

No hard feelings?

In 400 years, I might be able to forgive the Catholic church for the things it does today. :laugh2:

Meh. The Pope to most Catholics can be equated to the Royal Family of the UK, quaint but ultimately worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

EDIT: This post appears to be "missed" by many, so I'll bold and underline it...

I believe Galileo was technically forgiven in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV.

---

It was a rather informal one.

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

No hard feelings?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

In 400 years, I might be able to forgive the Catholic church for the things it does today. :laugh2:

---

You could go one, or severall, better and forgive them right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Meh. The Pope to most Catholics can be equated to the Royal Family of the UK, quaint but ultimately worthless.

---

Really? Most of the Catholics I know take him pretty seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

---

That pretty much sums up my feelings toward Papal Authority. That and this song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You could go one, or severall, better and forgive them right now.



Really? Most of the Catholics I know take him pretty seriously.

---

well there technically is somewhere around a Billion Catholics, out of that handful some probably do take him seriously; but my distinct impression from the majority of the ones of I've met really could care less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

well there technically is somewhere around a Billion Catholics, out of that handful some probably do take him seriously; but my distinct impression from the majority of the ones of I've met really could care less.

---

Then, in the strictest sense, you haven't spoken with any Catholics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Then, in the strictest sense, you haven't spoken with any Catholics.

---

okay, so it sounds awfully presumptuous, taking a look back at it now. I was going to write a big long shpiel on why I still think most people don't care, but its an opinion based on my own dealings with Catholics who can't even seem to remember the Pope's name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

---

Quote for the win.

The Church's authority was diminishing because the act of questioning in this instance has been proven so well to be correct. This has given leverage to other questions. So it is a matter of self preservation to remove this as a 'bad act' so that it stops giving momentum to other questing.

To be so categorically wrong in something that has such easy physical substance to measure would take a toll on its authority in all arenas. So this isn't just a matter of doing the right thing for the right thing. It is a act of self preservation.

I wonder what the Catholic church says about the Inquisition in general?

Man I have problems with institutionalised religion. Makes me cringe; its just men pretending to have God's authority to bend the will of men and therefore gain power for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H

I wonder what the Catholic church says about the Inquisition in general?

Man I have problems with institutionalised religion. Makes me cringe; its just men pretending to have God's authority to bend the will of men and therefore gain power for themselves.

---

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

---

That would be me. Although it depends on your definition of "The Church", if you mean the Roman Church, I don't support that but not agreeing with the Pope is different from rejecting all organised religion. At one time scientists believed that the walls of the heart were prous and that we had two jaw bones. They don't anymore, but it was the view up until around 1600.

I believe it is wrong to link the past of any organised religion to God, unless you actually believe God decided what those men did. which atheists don't because they don't believe he exists.

I've never understood that, "I God exists he must be evil because of the things people have done in his name."

Pape is right about this though, it's an embarressment to the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

---

Completely agreed. Maybe they just hope they will get a little piece of Paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That would be me. Although it depends on your definition of "The Church", if you mean the Roman Church, I don't support that but not agreeing with the Pope is different from rejecting all organised religion. At one time scientists believed that the walls of the heart were prous and that we had two jaw bones. They don't anymore, but it was the view up until around 1600.

I believe it is wrong to link the past of any organised religion to God, unless you actually believe God decided what those men did. which atheists don't because they don't believe he exists.

I've never understood that, "I God exists he must be evil because of the things people have done in his name."

Pape is right about this though, it's an embarressment to the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Quite right, and I apologize, I should have been clearer. Theoretically, there are good churches out there, especially individual ones who preach a non-literal interpretation, acceptance, tolerance, love, charity, etc, good virtues without sacrificing one's individuality, the righteousness of doubt, the healthiness of skepticism, and the virtues of disbelief and questioning of authority.

Indeed I was referring to the "biggun", the Roman Catholic church, as an organization, and more specifically acts carried out in the name of said church by said church officials and followers, the history of the said church, and what that church teaches precisely and wants to make law.

The above assumption about God is false, because if people do bad things in my name, they don't have my approval. That doesn't mean I am evil or good, it's circumstantial, and neither proof nor relevant concerning any God either.

Me, I have no beef with the idea of God in general, but more what people have done with that idea. Personally I would hope there is a God, who gives me eternal afterlife when I am dead, but hope is not fact, and I have reasons to doubt. I have no motive for attacking God, just as I do not spend my days planning for wars against angels, or designing leprechaun traps or hoping to enter a parallel universe. Should these things exist it's out of my hands, but since there's no reason to believe they exist, one cannot spend his life devoted to one's interpretation of an unseen being who could exist only in our imagination.

The people who have the most to gain from attacking God are those who believe in him and consider him to be an enemy. This happens most between clashing religious sects, between militant atheists (who don't believe God exists but specifically believe he does not, another form of faith) and religious people, between heretics and fundamentalists.

When one questions, doubts, and is skeptical of a thing, he is not making that thing his enemy. He is distancing himself from the bad that can come of any wrong interpretation of a thing. Being critical of a thing, like a religion, philosophy, or law, does not make one an enemy of these things. It merely means one seeks the best possible interpretation, the best possible formula, the best possible wording, the most fair law, the most just ruling, the most accurate teaching.

The enemy of law is one who is satisfied with substandard law. The enemy of philosophy is one which is satisfied with the most uncritical and apathetic vision of the world. The enemy of ethics is one who is happy following the letter of the principles, but not the spirit. The enemy of morality is one who is aware of it's existence and openly or subtly contradicts it.

The enemy of God is not a non-theist like me. The enemy of God is anything which purports to act in God's name and is satisfied with the basest desires, the most poorly assembled and worded doctrine, the contrived belief based upon hoaxes, lies, or propaganda, the most cynical and hypocritical twisting of the best parts of the God's teachings, and the most ruthless politics. I see the Catholic church, especially it's laws, history, acts, teachings, and so forth to be too satisfied with what must be improved upon, and a bad emissary for religious belief.

Others, small churches I and others I know have seen or attended, have a much more positive rating from this God critic. I am not saying all faith is harmful, wrong, or evil. I am saying that faith, when not properly balanced with reason, can be turned into blindness, twisted into ignorance, and forged into evil and spread like a plague.

God, or rather the idea of God, is very powerful. I respect that power. If it must be, it must be wielded only by those with the most righteous intent. I simply accuse men of not having that righteous intent.

Fundamentally I agree. However, I think its very difficult to look at an organisation like the Catholic Church and condemn the whole for what is reall a minority within that organisation. There have been good Popes, and bad ones. As with any position of power the personality of the individual is amplified by the office.

If I might make a suggestion, the best way to refer to the "biggun" would be "Roman Catholic Church" because that clearly distinguishes it from the other branches of the catholic church (note the lack of capitalisation).

Anyway, my point in this particular thread was that you can't blame the current Pope for the decisions on his predecessors, with the possible exception of JPII. The same goes for any other organisation.

Again I could be clearer.

I can specifically criticize the canon of laws of the Catholic church, it's official Bible, it's political positions, it's activism in the world, and it's history. I can separately criticize specific Popes and their actions, and I can also criticize individual branches, churches, or leaders of the Roman Catholic church, and other churches.

In this case, I take note that after 400 years, the current Pope has decided to polish up the image of Galileo, who as some have noted had been technically forgiven, but not fully accepted by the church until now. I also question why he was declared a heretic to begin with.

Separately, I can also point out how long it took the Roman Catholic Church to accept a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it's resistance to many modern scientific theories which it has only recently and reluctantly accepted.

In particular, I note that the Pope's word carries a certain "infallibility" among Roman Catholics, which is contradicted when current or previous Popes override the word of past Popes. Two infallible forces cannot contradict one another, and the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change when there is a new Pope.

The Church is a human organization. Our savior selected Peter as the rock upon which to build this church -- even knowing that Peter would deny him in his moment of crisis. That humanity is central to the faith, and to the Church itself. Humanity is, almost definitionally, far from flawless. In studying organizations for much of my adult life, I have yet to find one that got everything right and kept on doing so throughout its history.

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

I am an amateur historian, a trained social scientist, a skilled speaker, an insurance salesman...and a Knight of Columbus and life-long Catholic. I am neither ignorant of the history of my church, nor willing to water it down into a nothingness that would make that history -- and the learning and growth that have come with it -- an irrelevance.

Pizza, your version of God -- a higher power, left undefined -- would barely suffice to keep a 12-step group focused. Religion is supposed to challenge your thinking. It is supposed to make you consider -- carefully -- how you live your life and why. The genuflections, the rituals -- as much as I enjoy them -- are not the point. The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Our savior selected Peter as the rock upon which to build this church -- even knowing that Peter would deny him in his moment of crisis.

---

Yes, but he never said a lot of guys in funny expensive hats should follow Peter. And he especially never said those should be selected by humans, Peter was selected by Jesus himself, not by a bunch of disciples who held a few votes about who is the greatest and closest to God. In fact, the disciples tried that and Jesus wasn't exactly amused. Now the church always holds a vote about who will be the next pope, how that can be seen in the spirit of Jesus is beyond me. Like I said in another thread, show me a place in the bible where God did not choose his representative himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

That humanity is central to the faith, and to the Church itself. Humanity is, almost definitionally, far from flawless. In studying organizations for much of my adult life, I have yet to find one that got everything right and kept on doing so throughout its history.

---

Which is why the leadership of the church should be in God's hands and not in the Pope's hands, now if you do not get a response from god then either there is something wrong with your faith or how you ask him or there is no God, if you then put a pope in a golden hat and robe on top of your organization, it might remind you of the story where Moses was receiving God's words on top of a mountain while the people grew impatient and put a golden calf at the top of their organization. :dizzy2:
God wasn't amused about that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

---

I thought the whole point of the Pope was being God's representative on earth? If he is just as stupid as you and me, why put him on top and why not just use my own interpretation of the message? It may be wrong, but his may be just a wrong or even worse.

Concerning changes, God never changes and if you believe that Jesus was his son then his word is the word of God, he said you cannot buy your way into heaven, the church said you could and sold those letters of indulgence which haven't been abolished until today last I heard. Jesus also said your deeds won't save you, the church keeps telling people to pray several times to be saved etc. etc.
This is not a change of perception, this is corrupting the actual message from God himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

---

It lead to certain corruptions of the actual message which is the actual bad part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

---

That is indeed correct, but the catholic church in my and many other's eyes has added a lot of stuff to this that runs very contrary to what God wants from his people in order to advance the relationship as I tried to point out above.

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good attack on the Catholic Church.

1. Galileo was not condemned by the Pope, but by the Roman Inquisition. This was following a commision set up by Pope VIII to examine Galileo's book, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
2. Galileo had been given permission by the Pope to publish the Dialogue provided he treated the Copernican model as an hypothesis.
3. The Dialogue does not present arguements about the two systems equally. The proponent of the Ptolemaic system is called "Simplicius" and does not argue as effectively as the proponent of the Copernican model, Saiviati.
4. The discussions in the dialogue do not confine themselves to ideas that we today would see as scientific but also discuss God.
5. In 1822, the College of Cardinals agreed that the Copernican model was not heretical.
6. In 1992 the Church formally admited that Galileo's views on the solar system were correct.
7. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible only when three conditions are met:
(i) The Pope must be acting as the Pope. I suppose this means that if he is having a theological discussion over dinner with his friends, his statements are not infalliable.
(ii) The pronouncement must be concerning faith or morals
(iii)The prounouncement must be made in a way that makes it clear that the statement is a full, final and addressed to the whole church.
8. Protestant reformers were also hostile to Copernican ideas.

Of course the Papacy and the Roman Inquisition did not aquit themselves well in the matter of Galileo but we should not judge them or Galileo by modern standards. Neither the Pope, nor the Inquisition (nor Luther nor Calvin) nor Galileo himself would have understood our modern distinction between the realm of science and the realm of religion. It is also important to realise that infalibility is very limited and does not mean that the Pope never makes a mistake.

Intresting post DoG, one thing that does puzzle me is how you can be infalible and yet not only be limited in infalibility but also make mistakes.

You know like nearly dead, or a near miss. You're either dead or alive or you hit or missed what you were aiming at.

Surely your either infalible or you're not. :inquisitive:

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, but he never said a lot of guys in funny expensive hats should follow Peter. And he especially never said those should be selected by humans, Peter was selected by Jesus himself, not by a bunch of disciples who held a few votes about who is the greatest and closest to God. In fact, the disciples tried that and Jesus wasn't exactly amused. Now the church always holds a vote about who will be the next pope, how that can be seen in the spirit of Jesus is beyond me. Like I said in another thread, show me a place in the bible where God did not choose his representative himself.
....Which is why the leadership of the church should be in God's hands and not in the Pope's hands, now if you do not get a response from god then either there is something wrong with your faith or how you ask him or there is no God, if you then put a pope in a golden hat and robe on top of your organization, it might remind you of the story where Moses was receiving God's words on top of a mountain while the people grew impatient and put a golden calf at the top of their organization. :dizzy2:

---

The leadership of the Holy Father derives from the Apostolic tradition ("Who's sins you forgive....), only Peter and Paul were chosen by the hand of God directly. That is why the Holy Father is said to walk in the shoe's of the fisherman. Most are fairly humble about being worthy to fill those shoes too. The election of the new Holy Father is presumed to occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some selections have been better than others, may God forgive us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I thought the whole point of the Pope was being God's representative on earth? If he is just as stupid as you and me, why put him on top and why not just use my own interpretation of the message? It may be wrong, but his may be just a wrong or even worse.
...
Concerning changes, God never changes and if you believe that Jesus was his son then his word is the word of God, he said you cannot buy your way into heaven, the church said you could and sold those letters of indulgence which haven't been abolished until today last I heard. Jesus also said your deeds won't save you, the church keeps telling people to pray several times to be saved etc. etc.
This is not a change of perception, this is corrupting the actual message from God himself.
...
It lead to certain corruptions of the actual message which is the actual bad part.
...
That is indeed correct, but the catholic church in my and many other's eyes has added a lot of stuff to this that runs very contrary to what God wants from his people in order to advance the relationship as I tried to point out above.

---

You want perfection from the Holy Father? Spiritual perfection is NOT a common commodity. We make saints of the ones who get closest while in this life. The only reason for the infallibility of certain ex cathedra statements is the presumption that the Holy Spirit is working through the Holy Father in their pronouncement. The Holy Father is not the embodiment of God on earth, but an ambassador.

Yes, the indulgences were ill-thought and temporally motivated. The same can be said of the Crusades in large part as well. The Church has all too often deviated from the best path -- it is all too human to be distracted by the mundane and all too human to conflate one's own immediate desires with an interpretation of the larger goal. Sadly, this too is part of the process of growth and learning. Fortunately, we are under the hand of a forgiving God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

---

So when he pronounced a crusade and that everybody who joins in would have all their sins forgiven was that infallible or not?
And if yes, why did another infallible Pope apologize for it and say it was wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The leadership of the Holy Father derives from the Apostolic tradition ("Who's sins you forgive....), only Peter and Paul were chosen by the hand of God directly. That is why the Holy Father is said to walk in the shoe's of the fisherman. Most are fairly humble about being worthy to fill those shoes too. The election of the new Holy Father is presumed to occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some selections have been better than others, may God forgive us.

---

Considering the elections can fail several times before a consensus is found, the guidance of the holy spirit must be rather weak to nonexistant. And these people are supposed to guide the believers? If they cannot even come to a consensus on such an important matter as who should be the representative of God on earth(who we just learned says supposedly infallible things)?
That is very shaky at best, in the bible God hardly let important prophecies fail because his chosen prophet was a weak human, take Jonah and Moses for example, God made sure they delivered the right messages to the right people and he chose them himself, he did not have some cardinals vote several times and then watch them choose the wrong guy for the job. :dizzy2:
And he didn't really have his prophets make contradictory "infallible" statements either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You want perfection from the Holy Father? Spiritual perfection is NOT a common commodity. We make saints of the ones who get closest while in this life. The only reason for the infallibility of certain ex cathedra statements is the presumption that the Holy Spirit is working through the Holy Father in their pronouncement. The Holy Father is not the embodiment of God on earth, but an ambassador.

---

An ambassador who is very often very wrong and makes statements contradictory to the word of God. The word of God also happens to say that one should test those who claim to speak in the name of God by their deeds and whether they fit with the word of God, things like the crusades, burning witches, the Inquisition in general, letters of indulgence, praying to "saints" etc certainly do not fit with the word of God. Now you could claim the word of god is outdated and we have to develop our relationship with God etc. but it already took "us" 2000 years, it is still plain wrong and if you're going with updates you could also follow Muhammed, who also claimed to have the actual version of the word of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, the indulgences were ill-thought and temporally motivated. The same can be said of the Crusades in large part as well. The Church has all too often deviated from the best path -- it is all too human to be distracted by the mundane and all too human to conflate one's own immediate desires with an interpretation of the larger goal. Sadly, this too is part of the process of growth and learning. Fortunately, we are under the hand of a forgiving God.

---

Then how about praying to saints, having pictures of God and praying for the dead?
The first of the ten commandments pretty much forbids praying to anyone or anything but God.
Apart from that the bible says all believers are saints, there is no papal selection method mentioned anywhere.
The second commandment says one should not make pictures of God.
And praying for the souls of dead people, while it sounds like a nice and comforting idea even to me, would at least be rather useless since the bible says everybody has to stand before God alone and the only one who can save them is Jesus Christ, not their granddaughter.

Last but not least I would like to know what you think about people nowadays (catholics as well as atheists) who say that the church should become more modern and let go of it's old traditions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So when he pronounced a crusade and that everybody who joins in would have all their sins forgiven was that infallible or not?

---

Well let's apply the tests:
1. The Pope must be acting as the Pope. Probably, it may have been a call from a temporal power as the papacy was at that time
2. The pronouncement must be concerning faith or morals The bit about forgiveness of sins is to do with faith.
3. The pronouncement must be made in a way that makes it clear that the statement is a full, final and addressed to the whole church. I have never seen a translation of Urban's statement so I can't tell. However whatever he said would have referred to the first crusade only

I think we need a theologian to decide whether this was an infallible pronouncement or not.

Quote:

---

why did another infallible Pope apologize for it and say it was wrong?

---

He didn't. He chose his words very carefully. Either he was infallible or no fool (or perhaps both). In any case I don't think point 3 would apply to his apology.

Ex Cathedra was only written into canon law at the end of the 19th Century, Urban did not have the power to speak infallably. Urban, in fact, did not have the power to appoint Bishops and Abbots accross all Christondem.

That's not quite correct. Ex cathedra was written in to Canon Law in by the First Vatican Council but is was not defining something new, merely clarifying something that it was claimed had always existed. Therefore it would be possible to go back to Urban calling a crusade and decide whether this was an Ex Cathedra statement and therefore infallible or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

He didn't. He chose his words very carefully. Either he was infallible or no fool (or perhaps both). In any case I don't think point 3 would apply to his apology.

---

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize for blatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize for blatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind. :shrug:

---

You can make this criticism if you are pacifist and believe that war is never justified. Most Christians accept that war is sometimes acceptable. It is true that Jesus condemned violence (Mt 5:39) but he acted violently himself (Mt 15-17). We might feel that a war to support a Chrtistian state and re-open a pilgrimage destination to be insufficient cause but that would be applying modern standards to the early middle ages. What Urban did not sanction or encourage was the behaviour of crusaders when they were in the Middle East and this is what JP II was apologising for (amongst a whole range of other things too.)

Oh, you mean he was violent in the temple? There are several things to consider:

- He did not hurt any people.
- He is God and he can look into peoples' hearts, his judgement is ultimately just, if you disagree with that, well...
- Human judgement, is, as has been said, flawed, which is why humans should not judge and thus not kill others.
- God judges people and may use violence to punish them, he can do it because he is ultimately just and almighty, because he is God, that doesn't mean humans should act like God.

You're right that many Christians believe violence is necessary etc but I also know that the Bible says "Not everybody who will shout 'God! God!' will get into heaven." or something in that sense.
Or in other words, many consider themselves Christians but that does not mean God agrees with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize forblatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind. :shrug:

---

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself. I haven't found an instance where Jesus makes a blanket prohibition against all violence. "Turn the other cheek" is limited to "seven times seven" at which point you can bring the offender before what would amount to a Church court and then cast him out if he is unrepentant.

The Crusades were about a lot more than re-opening a route of pillgramage. Let's not forget that all those lands had only been under Muslim rule for a relatively short time and that they did not have a majoriety Muslim population, far from it in many cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

I am an amateur historian, a trained social scientist, a skilled speaker, an insurance salesman...and a Knight of Columbus and life-long Catholic. I am neither ignorant of the history of my church, nor willing to water it down into a nothingness that would make that history -- and the learning and growth that have come with it -- an irrelevance.

Pizza, your version of God -- a higher power, left undefined -- would barely suffice to keep a 12-step group focused. Religion is supposed to challenge your thinking. It is supposed to make you consider -- carefully -- how you live your life and why. The genuflections, the rituals -- as much as I enjoy them -- are not the point. The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

---

Reality never changes. Events occur and alter the present circumstances, but they do not alter the past. The past is set in stone. The past is how our present reality is determined. Therefore reality never changes. If the past were to change, so would the present, and we are talking about an alternate universe. Everything I am saying applies only to THIS universe, because anything outside of it does not matter to the discussion, and we will always be part of THIS universe.

Our perceptions of reality may change, but it does not. Subjective opinion and objective facts are two separate things. The truth is not governed by our opinions, and reality goes on whether we understand it fully or not.

What is my version of God, exactly? I'm curious, because I don't believe in any God as you may define it.

I will admit, I am not an expert on Catholicism, and I would not stand up long in a debate about the facts of the church with someone who knows most of the facts. However, when trust is placed in one man, who we all admit is fallible, then we are not following a higher power, we are following a man.

As such, why do we not follow our reasoning instead of accepting the words of yet another mortal as being the word of God? There may be a place in life for faith, as I've already said, but it MUST remain separate from our rational mind, and we must look on everything with a critical eye. I question why Papal Authority is required to achieve inner peace, especially when that Papal Authority has led so many so astray for so long, and led to wars, chaos, and the burning of heretics and the hatred of science.

The current Pope, I admit, is much better than his predecessors, but I still have criticisms of him and the Roman Catholic church, indeed all organized faith.

I criticize any organization which cites religious doctrine and the supernatural as reasons for making laws and policies. That sort of thing affects this reality, and it must take into consideration reason primarily over faith. Ultimately any religious discussion boils down to "It's what I believe, it's what I've been taught" but tradition itself is not reason. Some traditions are meant to be broken, and some are long overdue.

I seek further reforms from the religious organizations of the world, and will continue to speak out against them until the day I die. It's not faith I oppose, but the concept of faith trumping science, faith trumping reason, faith trumping fact. Such things are dangerous beyond imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself. I haven't found an instance where Jesus makes a blanket prohibition against all violence. "Turn the other cheek" is limited to "seven times seven" at which point you can bring the offender before what would amount to a Church court and then cast him out if he is unrepentant.

The Crusades were about a lot more than re-opening a route of pillgramage. Let's not forget that all those lands had only been under Muslim rule for a relatively short time and that they did not have a majoriety Muslim population, far from it in many cases.

---

I thought that 7 times 7 times was our equivalent of saying hundreds of time. Likewise when whatever it may be hits 1,000 it doesn't expire. Don't hold it literally.

I see no evidence that Jesus condoned violence, either aggressive or defensive.

Defensive violence, I see the point of. But I never read about Jesus raising a hand to defend himself against the Romans. And I definitely did not hear of him calling anyone to raise their swords and prepare armies for invasions.

If Jesus was just another guy who claimed to have a two-way radio to God, I would consider him a fool. What interests me about Jesus was the peaceful coexistence he preached and the moral life he led. If you contend that Jesus condoned violence, then we have differing opinions of Jesus. If you contend that Jesus condoned aggression, then it contradicts what he preached, according to your texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

I thought that 7 times 7 times was our equivalent of saying hundreds of time. Likewise when whatever it may be hits 1,000 it doesn't expire. Don't hold it literally.

---

Sorry, I misspoke, it's variously "7 times 70" or "77", so that's a total of 490 times. The relevant verses are Mathew 18.15-21, with a following parable up to 18.35. In these passages Jesus lays out the process for seeking restitution from another who has sinned against you, from confronting them privately to rejecting them, "as a Gentile and a tax collector" (18.17)

It's litteral, sorry. The figure comes in response to a question by Peter, after Jesus has spoken regarding dealing with those who sin against you and refuse to admit their fault. Forgiveness is unlimited provided the sinner admits sinning. As far as I am aware this is in agreement with Christian teaching and accords with most thought on salvation as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I see no evidence that Jesus condoned violence, either aggressive or defensive.

Defensive violence, I see the point of. But I never read about Jesus raising a hand to defend himself against the Romans. And I definitely did not hear of him calling anyone to raise their swords and prepare armies for invasions.

If Jesus was just another guy who claimed to have a two-way radio to God, I would consider him a fool. What interests me about Jesus was the peaceful coexistence he preached and the moral life he led. If you contend that Jesus condoned violence, then we have differing opinions of Jesus. If you contend that Jesus condoned aggression, then it contradicts what he preached, according to your texts.

---

I said he did not prohibit it, not that he condoned it. The famous "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" (Mathew 26.52) is hardly a cast iron prohibition.

Seems to be pretty ironclad that he was warning those who live by the sword that their efforts are self-destructive.

I simply disagree, but we can do that.

I don't dissagree there, but that doesn't necessarily say that you shouldn't fight, merely that you must accept the consequences. Further, it is not necessarily so that all fighting constitues "living by the sword" especially when, as Jesus points out, it was not the last option in this instance; had he so wished he could have called down legions of angels.

So overall I would say that violence should be avoided, and that there should always be a better path, but that fighting (even as the lesser choice) does not automatically seperate someone from the body of the Church, or however you want to define Us.

I would be happy to see Jesus' legion of angels come clean things up.

Until then, I prefer to BE the positive influence, rather than wait for a supernatural one from the heavens to save us. I prefer not to wait for prayers to be answered, and I would rather do my best to answer them myself. I would prefer not to blame the Devil for my shortcomings, and acknowledge who is truly responsible. I prefer not to believe that only certain people can experience an afterlife, simply because they hadn't been properly initiated into "the club". I prefer not to follow men dressed in cloth speak of morality and prefer to be the morality of which they speak, and never blindly follow these men of the cloth who have led us astray many times.

Remembering that these men are mortal, sinners, and ignorant just like us, we acknowledge that they have no superior or special relationship with any God. As such, we should consider everything they say and do critically, just as we look at everything the non-pious folks do critically.

If we trust in the message of a book that has been changed and altered and added to and taken away from and voted upon and mistranslated, then we have to assume it could change again. And by the very fallible men mentioned above.

Why not try to determine a non-revelation-based method of determining what is moral, proper, and reasonable? Can we not use basic reasoning to determine right from wrong?

If I go to hell for using the mind this God supposedly gave me, then he was wrong to give it to me and allow free will. He was also terribly hypocritical for creating me and then destroying me for being myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

---

Don't take this as sarcasm, as I am probably woefully underinformed, but I do have a question:

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on the status of Limbo? Wasn't it part of the Church's teachings for centuries, only to be reversed later as something that was totally made up?

It concerns the status of the born who died quickly before they were baptized, and all the people who were upset that the church's position was that those babies would not join them in heaven.

If the Church can amend the heavens to meet the will of the people... why is it the word of God?

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/7144846.html
http://agonist.org/20070421/catholic...ching_on_limbo
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_limbo21.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself.

---

If you're trying to say you do not believe what others wrote about him in the bible, and thus do not believe what the bible says, then surely you're an atheist anyway and do not need to care.
Or believe in something else and call yourself a christian for fun and giggles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

okay, so it sounds awfully presumptuous, taking a look back at it now. I was going to write a big long shpiel on why I still think most people don't care, but its an opinion based on my own dealings with Catholics who can't even seem to remember the Pope's name.

---

I'm formerly catholic and couldn't give a rat about the Pope and his ideas, but that's only because I'm atheist .

Catholic who actually follow the teachings of the religion (a tiny minority mind you) actually care about what the Pope says and doesn't say. That's the basis of catholicism, that whole religion is built around this character. If you don't know his name, then you're not a true catholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Don't take this as sarcasm, as I am probably woefully underinformed, but I do have a question:

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on the status of Limbo? Wasn't it part of the Church's teachings for centuries, only to be reversed later as something that was totally made up?

It concerns the status of the born who died quickly before they were baptized, and all the people who were upset that the church's position was that those babies would not join them in heaven.

If the Church can amend the heavens to meet the will of the people... why is it the word of God?

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/7144846.html
http://agonist.org/20070421/catholic...ching_on_limbo
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_limbo21.html

---

Once again, the true position is more complciated than the press would have you believe. I refer you to the wikepdia article on limbo which explains the true position. (This is all a bit off topic having nothing to do with Galileo)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If you're trying to say you do not believe what others wrote about him in the bible, and thus do not believe what the bible says, then surely you're an atheist anyway and do not need to care.
Or believe in something else and call yourself a christian for fun and giggles.

---

I do not believe that the Bible is the infallable word of God, one need only make a side-by-side comparison of the Gospels to see the errors in the various accounts. Since God does not make errors he cannot have been directly involved in it's writing.

In point of fact, I believe that it is Roman Catholic teaching that to declare the Bible infallable is heresy. Which is interesting because at one time the reverse was heresy. If you take a look at parts of Vatican II you can see that the inneracy of the Bible is considered to be limited, because there obviously are errors. For starters the world is not flat.

Further, even if the original Bible were inerrant the original Bible does not actually exist as a physical object, so much as a concept.

I never understand why the new gospels are never incorperated into the Bible.

~:smoking:

So many reasons. One is definately fear; fear of interfering with a divinely inspired canon. Whether you believe the Bible is infallable or not you have to ask the question of whether the decisions of the Councils in the 4th Century were infallable seperately. Leaving that aside though, we are in a far worse situation in terms of determining canon 1600 years later because we are fairly certain that the Church fathers had access to better records and more complete information. Additionally a lot of these "new" Gospels were only lost prior to the reformation and at least some were known in Mediaeval Europe and Byzantium, at that time the "Bible" or "Scripture" was much more a body of writings than a "book" in the modern sense, so that non-canonical texts were less distinguishable.

Ultimately the canonical texts are those considered to be of reliable providence, and modern scholarship hasn't really challanged this in a serious way. No earlier Gospel has been claimed, for example, and while Thomas and Peter may have a great deal in them which is true they are a century or more later than John, which is the latest of the canonical texts, and the most divergent.

Well, the Bible tells us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Right from the beginning we are told that God and the Word are inseperable. Obviously the Greek texts have not been translated word for word (indeed in Greek there's nine words for 'love', only the one is used in English, for example), but we must presume that God still gets His message across, otherwise He would be allowing us to base our beliefs on a lie.

If people deliberately tamper with the translations, as has been done with the NIV, then it's not really the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well, the Bible tells us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Right from the beginning we are told that God and the Word are inseperable. Obviously the Greek texts have not been translated word for word (indeed in Greek there's nine words for 'love', only the one is used in English, for example), but we must presume that God still gets His message across, otherwise He would be allowing us to base our beliefs on a lie.

If people deliberately tamper with the translations, as has been done with the NIV, then it's not really the Bible.

---

No, Saint Paul said that, "All scripture is inspired by God is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in rightiousness," (2 Tim 3.16, NRSV translation). My Bible contains a note (i) "Or, Every scripture inspired by God is also" for the first part. If you would like to examine some parralel translations, I found this: http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm.

Note that only the KJV and AKJV contain the word doctrine. Since neither of us can speak or read ancient Greek I think we will have to take a consensus view here. Even so, several things are immidiately apparent.

1. Scripture for Paul means the Torah, i.e. the Old Testemant, and can only mean that because the New Testemant has not yet been written.

2. Varient translations reveal the possibility that Paul acknowledges non-inspired scripture, what we call the Apophryca.

3. There is no evidence that Paul considers himself to be writing scripture, therefore his statement does not apply to his own remarks. In other words just because he says it doesn't make it true and this conclusion can be drawn from a critical reading of the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I do not believe that the Bible is the infallable word of God, one need only make a side-by-side comparison of the Gospels to see the errors in the various accounts. Since God does not make errors he cannot have been directly involved in it's writing.

In point of fact, I believe that it is Roman Catholic teaching that to declare the Bible infallable is heresy. Which is interesting because at one time the reverse was heresy. If you take a look at parts of Vatican II you can see that the inneracy of the Bible is considered to be limited, because there obviously are errors. For starters the world is not flat.

Further, even if the original Bible were inerrant the original Bible does not actually exist as a physical object, so much as a concept.

---

I don't really know where the bible says earth is flat but in that case I see two options, go ecomenic because noone can claim to know anything really, not even the pope, or become an atheist which is what I'm personally tending to anyway. :shrug:
If there is no infallible word of god as a guideline, anything could be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't really know where the bible says earth is flat but in that case I see two options, go ecomenic because noone can claim to know anything really, not even the pope, or become an atheist which is what I'm personally tending to anyway. :shrug:
If there is no infallible word of god as a guideline, anything could be right.

---

Well if we had the infallable word of God it wouldn't be faith, would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't really know where the bible says earth is flat but in that case I see two options, go ecomenic because noone can claim to know anything really, not even the pope, or become an atheist which is what I'm personally tending to anyway. :shrug:
If there is no infallible word of god as a guideline, anything could be right.

---

I remember this one:

Quote:

---

It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;

---

(Isaiah 40:22)

lets petition for the withdrawal of the apology:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I remember this one:

(Isaiah 40:22)

---

That passage is already so loaded with metaphors that how do we know that "the circle of the earth" isn't one as well? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well if we had the infallable word of God it wouldn't be faith, would it?

---

The faith part is to believe that this actually is the infallible word of God, the faith is kinda based on it.

If you do not believe the bible has the word of God then what makes it better than the Quran or the Kamasutra or any other nice book? Or is your faith based on the pope saying he's the pope, in which case, what makes him better than any mullah or guru or whoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The faith part is to believe that this actually is the infallible word of God, the faith is kinda based on it.

---

There is a difference between believing it to be the inspired word of God and it being the litteral word of God. The Gospels have manifest errors of fact, they cannot agree on the date of Jesus' birth. To suggest that the Bible is the infallable word of God is to suggest that God is incompetant.

In other words, it is blasphemy.

Quote:

---

If you do not believe the bible has the word of God then what makes it better than the Quran or the Kamasutra or any other nice book? Or is your faith based on the pope saying he's the pope, in which case, what makes him better than any mullah or guru or whoever?

---

I'm able to distinguish between the direct Word and the Word as passed through human voices, hands, and minds.

As regards the Pope, let me state, once again, I am not a Papist.

The Pope's willingness to excomunicate has been the cause of most formal schisms, one might compare with the conduct of the current Archbishop of Canterbury who has not excomunicated the American or African Primates, and has avoided formal schism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That passage is already so loaded with metaphors that how do we know that "the circle of the earth" isn't one as well? ~;)

---

Well, I only remembered it because I had an internet discussion with someone who thought that the Bible told us the Earth is round before it was scientifically proven- ignoring the fact that circles are two dimensional.

If I recall correctly there was a fuss once about Pi (number) because the Old Testament implicitly declared that the proper number was a round 3 :inquisitive: