124 years ago, George Salmon wrote a book asserting that the Catholic Church is not infallible. This book,
The Infallibility of the Church is a fantastic resource for those interested in a polemical work directly dealing with the papacy. As I was reading the book, I came across this golden nugget of a quote. One might call it a 'Nostradamus' moment.
In the book, he is discussing the Galileo episode. I will include the larger quote for context, but I will italicize the part which holds a special interest for us:
The present case is one of the most unpleasant that Roman Catholic controversialists have got to meet, for they cannot but be conscious that the best apologies they can offer are extremely unsatisfactory. They could save themselves all trouble if they would frankly say, 'Our Church made a great mistake two hundred and fifty years ago. She then imagined statements to be heretical which we now know were not only not heretical, but were perfectly true. She is a great deal wiser now.' Perhaps the theory of development may be improved into a form which will allow that confession to be made. But if that time comes, we need dispute no more about the Church's infallibility; the whole claim will then have been given up. Meanwhile we have to consider whether any of the attempts have been successful that have been made to free the Roman Church from the responsibility of mistakes which her rulers confessedly made at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
George Salmon could not imagine a time when a robust version of the papacy would be able or willing to admit its wrongdoing in the Galileo affair without yielding up its claims to infallibility. Fast forward to 1992. I include
a quote from New Scientist magazine:
At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.
I know this is old news, but it's never too late to point out the inperspicuity and errors of the Papacy. Woe to one who puts their faith in such a supposed 'vicar of Christ.'
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAdam,
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic dogma of infallibility is qualified in very specific ways. Errors of prudential judgment and discipline are fully compatible with the dogma of infallibility. For this reason the Galileo case does not falsify the dogma of infallibility.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
DeleteCould you please give these specific "qualifications" from official Roman Catholic documents? Thanks.
For the Sake of Him who is the Truth,
Josh
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteHow very convenient. Sheesh.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteHow can you know whether the errors are "errors of prudential judgment discipline" or misinterpretations of Scripture. For that matter, if you are not infallible, why are you still talking. There is no reason why any of us should listen to you. A fallible person can't give an infallible defense of your supposed infallible source of infallible interpretation. You are a walking anomaly--an fallible enigma bound up in a fallible riddle. If you're right, I should only want to talk with the Pope. Just being consistent!
It's easy, Nick. See, if it ends up being wrong, then it was an "error of prudential judgment."
ReplyDeleteFunny, Rome doesn't spell out AT THE TIME when they're making a discipline or judgment that could be wrong. At the time, you're supposed to trust that they're Christ's infallible vicegerent on Earth. Poor Galileo - if only he knew it would take 400 years for them to get around to taking back all the mean things they said.
Maybe they'll get around to apologizing to Luther some day, too.
What I find curious is the outright hatred that Reformed people display toward Catholics and their doctrine. Just observing how they are treated is eye-opening. Usually the Catholic bends over backwards to make his argument with charity and humility, and he is met with scorn and ridicule.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for healthy debate, but I think it would serve the Reformed side well to tone down the vitriol and mockery.
Jason,
DeleteI wonder if you are referring to the content of the post or the comment section?
I don't know how you define hatred, Jason, but I think of hatred in conversations like these as being very personally directed (ad hominems, that sort of thing). What you see here, as far as I can tell, is not "outright hatred." We want to deal with the issues involved, not slander or attack people personally.
DeleteYour sensitivity may be a bit overblown. Consider all of the "hate" accusations that you got during the Leithart episode. You did not hate the man, but that didn't stop people from saying that you did for rhetorical force.
I shouldn't have used all caps for "at the time." Sorry about that, Jason.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my comment, my observation applies to the general treatment of Catholics from Protestants in online discussions like this.
ReplyDeleteIn this thread, Bryan Cross makes a statement intended to clarify something he thought the author was confused about, and immediately Nick jumps in with mockery and arrogant hand-waving dismissal. Then, Adam jumps in and plays along.
The stuff here is pretty tame when comnpared to other things I have seen and experienced, but it's just as typical (go read Green Baggins or Old Life right now). The language and attitude used by many Reformed people toward Catholics falls into categories that Paul and James, as well as Jesus, clearly condemn as unloving.
And as for Leithart, I never used intemperate language toward him, either publicly or privately. If people accused me of "hate," it was because I opposed him in court. If you guys, and other Calvinists, want to do the same, then no problem. But when you come off as arrogant and condescending it is unbecoming of Christians.
As a rule, I almost always stay away from comments sections at GB and OL for the same reasons you're mentioning, Jason.
DeleteJason
DeleteI do not want to be understood as defending any of the comments here or around the internet, but, how do you understand Jesus and Paul's harsh language in polemical situations? (I am sure I do not need to point out to you these instances in the New Testament.)
PS - Ironically, the people who attacked me more viciously than anyone else during the Leithart case were, you guessed it, TRs who thought I was going too easy on him.
ReplyDeleteI must confess, I still would have liked to have seen Brian or Jason answer Josh's questions. They're pretty substantive and reasonable questions, I think our Catholic friends would agree.
ReplyDeleteAdam,
ReplyDeleteIt is not easy to know whether Josh is serious, because a simple google search provides the answer in about ten seconds. (See, for example, the Catholic encyclopedia article on infallibility: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) That's why the question is embarrassing. How is it possible that you're criticizing something you haven't made even the slightest effort to try to understand on its own terms? The continual straw man, in effect, works in the Catholic's favor. It also reflects badly on Reformed seminaries, either for teaching such straw men, or for failing to provide a fair understanding of other Christian traditions.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
DeleteIf it were only that simple. First, the link you provided is not to official Catholic teaching. All you gave us is one fallible source. Why should I take what this online encyclopedia says as definitional of the whole Roman Church? Second, and more importantly, different Catholic apologists, such as yourself, define and defend papal infallibility differently. Thus, for you to come on our blog and say that we are not qualifying the Roman view properly places is out of place. The burden of defense is on you to at the very least provide dogmatic teaching on this subject. It is not the fault of the Reformed seminaries that Rome does not have one single and monolithic way of defining and defending its teachings. Maybe the unity the Catholics speak of is not so united.
Seeking True Unity,
Josh