Actually, the Church never did teach those things. However, there were those in the Church who believed that certain passages should be taken more literally than they were meant to be taken based on appearances (e.g. the sun rising and setting -- it appears to rise and set but we now know it's the earth moving toward and away from the sun that simply makes it look like it's rising or setting). In addition, another problem was that the Church had been dealing with the Protestant "Reformation," and there was a lot of controversy surrounding issues of personal interpretation of Scripture. And the pope at the time, Urban VIII, was weary of controversy.Doc said:
But despite the guilty verdict, he Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileos case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileos day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
The Church never actually taught that it was ok to burn heretics. That didn't stop various members of the Church from doing so, but the Church never taught it to be morally ok. Excommunication is ok too -- Christ told us that if a person wouldn't listen to you, other witnesses, or the Church, to treat him like a tax collector.
No woman has the right to be a priest! Actually, no one at all has a right to be a priest. Rather, it's a privilege to which God calls certain people. However, He does NOT call women to be priests, nor has He ever done so. None of the 12 apostles were women, and yet if Jesus had wanted to, He could've made his Blessed Mother an apostle or Mary Magdalene. But that's all I'm gonna say on the topic for now, as the topic of this thread isn't about women's ordination. However, the teaching that only men can be priests is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium. If you deny it, then you're not in communion with the Church and have no business receiving Holy Communion -- if you do receive it you commit sacrilege.
You misunderstand. Annulments aren't "Catholic divorce." An annulment means that there was something existing at the time a marriage took place that kept it from being a valid, sacramental marriage. For example, adultery wouldn't in itself be grounds for an annulment, but if it was obvious before the wedding that one of the spouses had no intention of being faithful, that would invalidate the marriage.
I agree, you should. At least it would be honest to admit you no longer believe as a Catholic and leave instead of staying in the Church and continuing to call yourself Catholic, all the while conspiring to destroy the Church from within (and note that when I say "you" I'm speaking collectively, not just to Doc).
St. Francis never opposed any Church doctrines! But first, I want you to prove that he did.
True, they're sinners just like you and me. But the Church cannot teach wrongly. That has nothing to do with how sinful the members of the Magisterium is; it has no bearing on their ability to teach infallibly.
And Doc, let me repeat what I said earlier. Jesus said that whoever listens to His apostles listens to Him. And whoever rejects the apostles rejects Him. Although He was speaking directly to the apostles, what He said was also directed at the apostles' successors -- the popes and bishops of the Catholic Church. Thus, when the Church teaches something, it's God teaching us. And we can have complete confidence that if the Church teaches something, then it's true, and it's to be believed. Not to believe is a mortal sin because it's putting your feelings and opinions above God. Thus, if you're not willing to accept ALL the Church's teachings, you need to stop receiving Communion until and unless you repent of your refusal to submit to Church teaching via the sacrament of penance. Because as long as you do receive Holy Communion while denying Church teachings, you commit sacrilege, objectively speaking.
You were only trying to help! *hugs*