Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves<\/span>, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled \u201cOn the Sunspots,\u201d wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture<\/span>:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith<\/span>, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth<\/span> were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on the twenty-fifth of February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine<\/span> and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it; and your failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned. In execution of this decree, on the following day at the palace of and in the presence of the Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was enjoined upon you by the Father Commissary of the Holy Office of that time, before a notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the said false opinion and not in the future to hold or defend or teach it in any way whatsoever<\/span>, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon your promising to obey, you were dismissed.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And in order that a doctrine so pernicious<\/span> might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth<\/span>, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture<\/span>.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: \u201cDialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World System:\u201d; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterward informed that through the publication of said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun<\/span> was daily gaining round, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms as probably: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture<\/span>.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy office, where, being examined upon our oath, you acknowledged the book to be written and published by you. You confessed that you began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago, after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you requested license to print it without, however, intimating to those who granted you this license that you had been commanded not to hold, defend, or teach the doctrine in question in any way whatever<\/span>.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in many places drawn up in such a form that the reader might fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side are calculated by their cogency to compel conviction rather than to be easy of refutation, excusing yourself for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue and by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to his own subtleties and in showing himself more clever than the generality of men in devising, even on behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare your defense, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against the calumnies of your enemies, who charged that you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office, in which certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had not been punished but only that the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index has been announced to you, wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held<\/span>. And, as in this certificate there is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely, the order not \u201cto teach\u201d and \u201cin any way,\u201d you represented that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost all memory of them and that this was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested permission to print your book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your error but that it might be set down to a vainglorious ambitions rather than to malice. But his certificate produced by you in your defense has only aggravated your delinquency, since, although it is there stated that said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture<\/span>, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability; nor does the license artfully and cunningly extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify the command imposed upon you.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination at which (without prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together with your confessions and excuses above-mentioned, and all that ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final sentence against you:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, but this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and your Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part \u2013<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine \u2013 which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures \u2013 that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world<\/span>; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church<\/span> in the form to be prescribed by us for you.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And in order that this your grave and pernicious error<\/span> and transgression<\/span> may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the \u201cDialogues of Galileo Galilei\u201d be prohibited by public edict.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this an din any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>[Signed:]<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>F. Cardinal of Ascoli<\/span>
\nB. Cardinal Gessi<\/span>
\nG. Cardinal Bentivoglio<\/span>
\nF. Cardinal Verospi<\/span>
\nFr. D. Cardinal of Cremona<\/span>
\nM. Cardinal Ginetti<\/span>
\nFr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>[Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo<\/span> (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span><\/span>How did the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo know that the Pope\u2019s discipline of Galileo was not infallible?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s very simple:<\/p>\n
1. It wasn\u2019t made by a pope.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>2. It wasn\u2019t made by an ecumenical council (in agreement with, or ratified by a pope).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>[technically, neither papal and conciliar infallibility were expressly defined at that time at the highest levels of Catholic authority, though very widely believed and accepted by many centuries of practice; papal infallibility was made ex cathedra<\/span> dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council; the Second Vatican Council treated conciliar infallibility, as I understand, in greater depth than ever before]<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>3. No accepted formula was expressed, in which all Catholic faithful were bound to hold this opinion as an article of the Catholic faith.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>4. Even if #3 were true, the condemnation would be neither binding on all the faithful nor infallible, because of the source of the statement (per #1 and #2).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>5. It had nothing truly to do with faith and morals (which Vatican I made clear was the subject of infallible declarations): meaning theology and ethical and moral issues.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNow, you will no doubt quibble with #5 (and #3, but that is eliminated by #4), but the astronomical details of the earth do not in any way constitute a point of theology. This particular tribunal was obviously gravely mistaken in both its science and in its biblical hermeneutics, but not in theology, because this isn\u2019t a theological point in the first place. And since it is not (nor is it a moral matter), it cannot possibly be an ex cathedra<\/span> or infallible statement. It\u2019s simply wrong, period, through and through, but this has no bearing on the Catholic doctrine of infallibility because the conditions for same were not met, per #1-5 above.<\/span><\/p>\nThe description \u201cheresy\u201d in the sentence is very unfortunate because, again, this dealt with no doctrine of the Catholic faith; only with a philosophical \/ scientific tenet (then categorized within the accepted Aristotelian cosmology, which turned out to be dead-wrong on this point). It\u2019s a classic case of regarding something as dogma which had no business being dogma in the first place (but this tribunal didn\u2019t \u201cmake\u201d any dogma because it had no authority to do so). Earlier popes saw nothing \u201cheretical\u201d about Copernicanism; this was simply a stupid temporary diversion from solid thinking by a group of philosophical reactionaries.<\/p>\n
It is fine for the RCC to centuries or decades or years later declare that something was wrong, etc.; but how do they know for sure at the time?<\/span><\/p>\nBy centuries of practice; it was understood (at least by the theologically-educated; others accepted their authority) how Catholic authority functioned and operated. Often we hear that Catholics before 1870 couldn\u2019t know about all the fine distinctions made then. Yet I have found a statement from St. Francis de Sales (a Doctor of the Church), made in 1596 (37 years before this time) which contains all the essential elements of the ex cathedra<\/span> proclamation on papal infallibility from 1870:<\/p>\nWhen he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.<\/p>\n
We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram<\/span>, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.<\/p>\nBut he cannot err when he is in cathedra<\/span>, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.<\/p>\n(The Catholic Controversy<\/span>, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989, 306-307)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
One can see the strong similarity to the 1870 statement:<\/p>\n
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra<\/span>, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIs not the infallibility dogma suppossed to provide the church and the people with an umpire who can walk into the room and say, \u201cThus says the Lord\u201d, and give the right interpretaion on the spot to settle the controversy? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nYes. Obviously, then, this issue was not considered important enough for the pope to make any statement at all, let alone an infallible one.<\/p>\n
How does that solve issues at the time, when many times it takes 2-300 years before the RCC will rule on an issue?<\/span><\/p>\nYou make the very common mistake of confusing infallibility in the ordinary magisterium with ex cathedra<\/span> statements.<\/p>\nWhat are the infallible statements of the Popes throughout history that are:<\/span><\/p>\ninterpretations or Extra-biblical doctrines, dogmas?<\/span><\/p>\nHere\u2019s my paper I wrote specifically for people like you, who ask this question:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere Can One Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines? \u201d<\/p>\n
Is there a listing?<\/span><\/p>\nHow does anyone know the list is infallible?<\/span><\/p>\nBy consulting what the Church has said about it, in councils and catechisms, and in her greatest theologians. There are some complexities, but we would fully expect this, just as there are tons of complexities also with what all \u201ctraditional\u201d Christians accept is an infallible Bible. There are seeming contradictions or difficulties or mysteries, but no Protestant like yourself stops believing in biblical infallibility because of those. So why do you demand a much-higher standard and perfect knowledge of us when it comes to papal infallibility?<\/p>\n
Some say only two statements are infallible or three?<\/span><\/p>\nImmaculate Conception (1854)<\/span>
\nPapal Infallibilty (1870)<\/span>
\nMary\u2019s Bodily Assumption (1950)<\/span><\/p>\nThos are ex cathedra<\/span> statements (the very highest level of authority). But there are also infallible statements which are not ex cathedra<\/span>.<\/p>\nAre there any others, except for Biblical statements, like Jesus is God, etc.<\/span><\/p>\nThere was no need for such a statement on that, as it was always understood as true in the Church from the beginning, as seen in, e.g., the famous Creeds.<\/p>\n
Juan: \u201cKnowledgeable Catholics have always known that the Pope\u2019s understanding of science and other secular subjects . . .\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThis typical reply still won\u2019t do, as the very Churchmen who, with papal approval, condemned Galileo, did so on the grounds that he was contradicting an article of faith: i.e. the Scriptural teaching of geocentrism.<\/span><\/p>\nIn other words, Catholics in the 16th\/17th century did see this as a matter of faith, not simply one of secular science.<\/span><\/p>\nSeven Cardinals on one tribunal saw things that way. Big wow. Ho hum. That hardly generalizes to all Catholics. As I noted in one reply, the majority of Catholic intellectuals were on Galileo\u2019s side. The history of the Church and science in the previous hundred years proves that this incident was a temporary aberration in an otherwise great record in scientific matters. Indeed, many (non-Catholic) scholars hold that St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism was largely accountable for the intellectual atmosphere and pedigree within which modern science began to flourish. It is no accident that this occurred in the High Middle Ages, primarily in Catholic western Europe.<\/p>\n
The pope of the time (Urban VIII) may have approved this ridiculous decree informally, but he did not place his formal approval on it or declare it as a binding belief, so all this is much ado about nothing. Sure, some people were falsely \u201cled\u201d by the decree, but it has no bearing on infallibility; no relation to it at all.<\/p>\n
As for it being a matter of faith, again (apart from the question of the level of their authority within the Church) they were simply mistaken. They wrongly believed that the Bible taught a stationary earth at the center of the universe (along with the misguided hermeneutical principles involved therein, such as the fact of habitual phenomenological <\/span>language in the Bible), but that was never declared as dogma, nor is it a doctrine of the faith. You disagree? Fine; then take up Patrick Madrid\u2019s challenge and produce an unequivocal infallible Catholic document to that effect (this does not qualify) . I won\u2019t hold my breath. Moreover, simply being in the Bible doesn\u2019t make something an article of faith. The Bible mentions all kinds of historical relative trivialities that make no part of the faith itself; they are merely recording historical events.<\/p>\nYou mean to tell me that a decree of the Holy Office, approved by the Pope, and inclusion of a work on the Forbidden Index, has nothing to do with the Ordinary Magisterium?<\/span><\/p>\nAgain, it was not formally approved; it was not even a document from the pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/span> article on \u201cInfallibility\u201d<\/a> discusses both the ordinary magisterium and Galileo, contradicting you on both scores:<\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Galileo<\/span>. As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained \u2014 which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Conclusion. The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>* the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;<\/span>
\n* ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and<\/span>
\n* the pope himself separately.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium<\/span>, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne<\/span>, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium<\/span> has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne<\/span> or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Even the ordinarium magisterium<\/span> is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ\u2019s mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ\u2019s promises. . . . the pope\u2019s supremacy is also an essential factor in the constitution of an ecumenical council \u2013 and has in fact been the formal and determining factor in deciding the ecumenicity of those very councils whose authority is recognized by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nI\u2019ll remember that the next time I read something out from the Vatican.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nI hope you\u2019ll remember the above clarification, so you will make the necessary and crucial distinctions that you have failed to make with regard to Galileo. But if you simply choose to disregard these distinctions of Catholic ecclesiology, then your problem lies in other areas (dissent; excessive private judgment to the point of disagreeing with clear Church teachings).<\/p>\n
Juan: \u201cKnowledgeable Catholics have always known that the Pope\u2019s understanding of science and other secular subjects is not protected by the chrism of infallibility.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nWhere is this written at the time of the 1870 dogma of infallibility??<\/span><\/p>\n. . . when . . . he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church . . . \u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Galileo judgment was the product of neither a pope nor an ecumenical council in agreement with a pope, nor was it about the faith, nor about morals, nor required to be held by the universal Church. Why is this so difficult of a concept to grasp?! I know you would love to find such an error in Catholic history to shoot down infallibility, but this one simply ain\u2019t it! Give it up, man! :-)<\/p>\n
What practical good or usefulness is the infallibility dogma, if it does not work all the time at the time?<\/span><\/p>\nIt doesn\u2019t apply to this matter, so your comment is utterly irrelevant as regards Galileo.<\/p>\n
\u201cCatholics are human\u201d<\/span>, you wrote \u2014 Exactly!<\/span><\/p>\nIndeed, this farcical document is an exemplary example of that.<\/p>\n
The church is human, prone to errors and sins.<\/span><\/p>\nAt a sub-infallible level, yes, of course.<\/p>\n
Only God is infallible, and His word is infallible, being an extension of Himself, God cannot lie \u2013 Titus 1:2. \u201cThou hast magnified Thy word according to all Thy name\u201d Psalm 138:2<\/span><\/p>\nThat same Holy Scripture teaches that the Jerusalem council was infallible (Acts 15:29-30), so that is now God, His Word, and the first Christian council, so you are already mistaken. And prophets were even more<\/span> than infallible: they routinely made inspired utterances right from God. And this was true long before their words were ever written down as part of Scripture, and before the same Scripture was canonized. Your beef is with God, not Catholics.<\/p>\nPeter says the churches he wrote to were already established in the truth, but in order to remind them and stir up their minds and memories he is diligent to write the second letter ( 3:1) in order that they will have it after he dies. ( 1:12-21) Because his eyewitness testimony was written down, we have the \u201cword of prophecy made more sure\u201d. (1:19) <\/span><\/p>\nIt didn\u2019t have<\/span> to be written down to have authority. This is what Protestants don\u2019t get. Paul taught that his oral teaching was equally as authoritative as his written word (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2). Apostles were infallible, too, before<\/span> their word was inscripturated, so (I hate to break the news to you, but) you are wrong yet again. The council of Jerusalem was also infallible and binding, and proclaimed as such, before it was recorded in the book of Acts. Everything is here that Catholics believe! I fail to see what else we need to produce from Scripture in order to prove that infallibility is a biblical notion.<\/p>\nLuke says that Theophilus was catechized (orally taught), but he writes his gospel so that he will know the certainty, the exact truth of what he was taught. Luke 1:1-4<\/span><\/p>\nWriting is great! Who denies that? Certainly not Catholics. I\u2019m a writer myself. :-) The only dispute is whether writing (the Bible) is the sum total of Christian infallible authority. Catholics and Orthodox (and the Bible) say no; Protestants say yes, in opposition to the teaching of the same Bible for whom they claim alleged sole infallible authority. Here you neglect to see that the same Luke writes in the book of Acts, concerning the Ethiopian eunuch:<\/p>\n
Acts 8<\/p>\n
26: But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, \u201cRise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.\u201d This is a desert road.
\n27: And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can\u2019dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
\n28: and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
\n29: And the Spirit said to Philip, \u201cGo up and join this chariot.\u201d
\n30: So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, \u201cDo you understand what you are reading?\u201d
\n31: And he said, \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?\u201d And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So the same writer who allegedly teaches sola Scriptura<\/span> in Luke 1 now records a story for our instruction, whereby plain, \u201cperspicuous\u201d Scripture is not clear enough to be understood, without the necessary guidance of a teacher in the Church (8:30-31,34). Philip the Evangelist was a deacon (Acts 6:3-6), so he helped the eunuch to \u201cunderstand\u201d Scripture. Live, authoritative teaching was needed. And the same Peter that you cite as another supposed advocate of sola Scriptura<\/span> also wrote:<\/p>\n2 Peter 3:15-16:<\/span> . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nJesus said the principle of apostolicity (as a condition for the written word of the NT) was from Himself and His word in John 17:8 \u2013 the words that the Father gave to Him, He then gave those words to the apostles. And they wrote gospels and letters, etc. <\/span><\/p>\nYeah, sure, they did. But this passage has nothing directly to do with the written word. It says nothing about that, so it is a case of more of your wishful eisegesis. Jesus simply says that He communicated divine words to the disciples. Every time some overzealous Protestants see \u201cword\u201d in the Bible they think \u201cBible\u201d, but of course, it is more often than not referring to oral preaching, not the written divinely-inspired word. It\u2019s just more of the patented Protestant lightning-quick biblical interpretation without properly thinking about the context and intent of the passage: the rush to produce yet another alleged \u201cprooftext\u201d when there is none to be had for false Protestant teachings.<\/p>\n
I have many more things to reveal to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12<\/span><\/p>\nWhat in the world does this have to do with the Protestant invention of sola Scriptura<\/span>, pray tell?<\/p>\nThe only sure way of knowing the apostolic deposit is the written word, the Holy infallible Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\nThen how can the Jerusalem council be binding and infallible? You tell me. The truth was arrived at infallibly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit,by men gathered together, then preached orally.<\/p>\n
John 17:17, Psalm 119, John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. <\/span><\/p>\nNumbers of Scriptures do you no good unless they prove what you are trying to prove. :-)<\/p>\n
John 17:17:<\/span> \u201cThy word is truth.\u201d That can be oral or written. Usually in Scripture (esp. the Old Testament) it meant oral proclamation of the word of God (i.e., from prophets or Lawgivers like Moses). In any event, no sane Christian denies that God\u2019s word (whether oral or written) is \u201ctruth,\u201d so what\u2019s the point? It helps not one whit to determine whether sola Scriptura<\/span> is true. It just states truisms that we all accept. The folly in the standard Protestant \u201carguments\u201d for this false doctrine are never-ending.<\/p>\nPsalm 119:<\/span> the same applies: \u201cword\u201d is not restricted to the written word or the Bible. As to the \u201claw\u201d and \u201cstatutes,\u201d etc., for most Jews these were oral proclamations, and of course, mainstream Judaism of that time and in the Pharisaical school accepted authoritative oral tradition as well as the Torah, whch they believed was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai in addition to the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law. So again a big zero as to supposed sola Scriptura<\/span>. The Jews didn;t bwelieve in it any more than the NT writers did. It was a novel invention of Luther, because he had no other choice, having ditched the authority of the Church and having refused to submit to it.<\/p>\nJohn 10:35:<\/span> \u201cscripture cannot be broken.\u201d Of course it cannot. All agree on this; it has nothing to do with the unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura<\/span>.<\/p>\n2 Timothy 3:16-17:<\/span> at least this is about the Bible, for a change, but all it does is teach that Scripture is great and wonderful (as all Christians agree again). it doesn;t say that it alone is the infallible authority. Paul in the very same letter teaches the infallibility of his oral teaching (1:13-14; 2:2).<\/p>\nAnd, as Ireneaus writes, \u201c. . . the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. . . \u201d <\/span>Against Heresies<\/span>
![\"Galileo4\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2006\/05\/Galileo4.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n