Vatican forgives Galileo after only 400 years

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

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.

[Husar]

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?

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.
And he didn't really have his prophets make contradictory "infallible" statements either.

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.

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?

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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.)

[Husar]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[Lord Winter]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.