Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThey would simply spiritualize that story. The wine would be a metaphor for God givin ya tha "good stuff." This would be one of those passages where it would be permissable to interpret to get one's ass out of a theological bind.
I take it that congregation doesn't serve wine at communion. What is their take on Jesus' wedding miracle?
Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps you misread the quote. It said Galileo's proposition was philosophically false because it was contrary to Holy Scripture, which is to say its contrariness to Scripture is sufficient to deem it false, irrespective of whatever the contemporary cosmological models were.
Philosophically "false" because the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model was widely considered to be the only correct cosmological model at the time.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIs a Catholic elementary school a teaching body of the Church?
The 'Holy Tribunal' is not a teaching body of the Church.
What about a priest's sermon?
Does Catholic teaching consist solely of ex cathedra proclamations?
Has the pope spoken ex cathedra on the permissibility of abortion?
How about on the permissibility of gay marriage?
If he hasn't or hadn't, mustn't you then conclude that those are not or were not forbidden by Catholic teaching if you can't derive their non-permissibility from other ex cathedra proclamations?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, the quote says "absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because" etc. We can get into a grammatical debate here over which of the adjectives is qualified by the subsequent clause, but the subsequent sentence in the same quote clearly differentiates philosophical and theological objections - it seems only reasonable that the distinction holds in the first sentence as well. Hence, my point about the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model (which is actually stressed in the article you're quoting from) holds.
Perhaps you misread the quote. It said Galileo's proposition was philosophically false [b]because it was contrary to Holy Scripture, which is to say its contrariness to Scripture is sufficient to deem it false, irrespective of whatever the contemporary cosmological models were.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut you claimed that Galileo's model had nothing to do with theology. If that were true, why would the Tribunal even bother to have "theologically considered" it? Would the Tribunal "theoligically consider" which professional baseball team is the best? Of course not. It "theologically considered" Galileo's model because it thought that such cosmological matters were also theolgoical ones, and they concluded that Galileo's cosmology undermined their theology.
Actually, the quote says "absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because" etc. We can get into a grammatical debate here over which of the adjectives is qualified by the subsequent clause, but the subsequent sente ...[text shortened]... h is actually stressed in the article you're quoting from) holds.
The Tribunal is clearly saying that his model is contrary to some theology. Do you dispute this?
If not, then let us proceed. Whose theology is it contrary to? Does the Tribunal have its own theology, seperate and distinct from the Church's? If not, then presumably the Tribunal is refering to the Church's official theology. It's saying that Galileo's model is contrary to the Church's official teachings. It's irrelvant that the Tribunal itself isn't a teaching body; it's speaking on behalf of the Church saying that the Church's teachings have been violated.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is a Catholic elementary school a teaching body of the Church?
Not on matters of doctrine.
What about a priest's sermon?
In so far as it reflects Church teaching on the subject, yes. In terms of defining and or clarifying doctrine, no.
Does Catholic teaching consist solely of ex cathedra proclamations?
No. (I did mention General Councils as well).
Catholic teaching consists of the teachings of the Apostles, with elaboration/development over time as expressed in the infallible teachings of General Councils and ex cathedra proclamations. So you can have teachings that have never been affirmed in a General Council or an ex cathedra proclamation that are still part of Catholic doctrine if:
(1) It pertains to doctrine/faith and morals
(2) It has been taught by the Fathers and the Bishops of the Church from the very beginning
I can't think of any current instances off-hand.
Has the pope spoken ex cathedra on the permissibility of abortion?
Yes. In Humanae Vitae (Paul VI).
How about on the permissibility of gay marriage?
Not ex cathedra. However, Tradition has always held that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is always between one man and one woman; one can safely rule out gay marriage.
If he hasn't or hadn't, mustn't you then conclude that those are not or were not forbidden by Catholic teaching if you can't derive their non-permissibility from other ex cathedra proclamations?
See above.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn Galileo's time, tradition had held that the sun revolved around the earth.
Tradition has always held that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is always between one man and one woman; one can safely rule out gay marriage.
If tradition is the only thing making gay marriage unacceptable to the Catholic church, and if tradition has been recanted before, then it's possible that in the future, the Catholic Church could endorse gay marriage while maintaining its current theology, correct?
Let it be known that when I post with my current forum settings designating myself as the Red Hot Pope and sitting in The Chair, that which I post should be taken as my official position on the matters at hand. Whenever my settings are otherwise, what I post is not necessarily my official position.
Dr. S
P.S. Damn, this infallibility gig is tough. I've already got a couple edits on my initial ex cathedra proclamation!
P.P.S. I wonder, does the Pope have to edit and revise his ex cathedra proclamations, or do the first drafts come out perfect?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat ex cathedra stuff is tough. My proclomations tend to be more "ex temporaneous".
Let it be known that when I post with my current forum settings designating myself as the Red Hot Pope and sitting in The Chair, that which I post should be taken as my official position on the matters at hand. Whenever my settings are otherwise, what I post is not necessarily my official position.
Dr. S
P.S. Damn, this infallibility gig is t ...[text shortened]... have to edit and revise his ex cathedra proclamations, or do the first drafts come out perfect?
It is well known that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. So the first drafts must come out perfect.
This "Red Hot Pope" designation of yours could be useful. It would be a change of pace to get you to actually state your position on something for once, instead of having you play the devil's advocate incessantly.
Originally posted by rwingettBut I'm just playing a different game now, one the Catholic Church plays, known to many youths as Simon Says.
That ex cathedra stuff is tough. My proclomations tend to be more "ex temporaneous".
It is well known that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. So the first drafts must come out perfect.
This "Red Hot Pope" designa ...[text shortened]... ce, instead of having you play the devil's advocate incessantly.
Originally posted by flyUnityflyUnity: "So do you think everything that your churchleaders decide is correct?"
So do you think everything that your churchleaders decide is correct? could they ever be wrong? I agree with you that some of the Protestant Churches interpretes things way goofy. But why dont you listen to Paul's advise when he says to Work out your own salvation, instead of letting a church tell you what to do.
notice how Paul says to work out your o ...[text shortened]... ear and trembling, allot of people delete the words (in their heart) "with fear and trembling"
Absolutely not. I was talking about the teaching authority of the Magisterium.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSee my post above on the definition of Tradition (capital T).
Let it be known that when I post with my current forum settings designating myself as the Red Hot Pope and sitting in The Chair, that which I post should be taken as my official position on the matters at hand. Whenever my settings are otherwise, what I post is not necessarily my official position.
Dr. S
P.S. Damn, this infallibility gig is t ...[text shortened]... have to edit and revise his ex cathedra proclamations, or do the first drafts come out perfect?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEven though you're question is meant to be sarcastic, I'll answer it.
P.P.S. I wonder, does the Pope have to edit and revise his ex cathedra proclamations, or do the first drafts come out perfect?
When does a contract come into effect? When the contracting parties put their signature to it. When does a law come into effect? When the President signs it.
When does an ex cathedra proclamation go into effect? When the Pope puts his signature or seal to it. Until then, it's just a draft and not protected by infallibility.