A faked saint?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Forgive the link to the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=489428&in_page_id=1811



An Italian monk who became the country's best-loved saint after being canonised by Pope John Paul II and who claimed to suffer stigmata or the wounds of Christ was a fake who used carbolic acid, according to a controversial new book.



Padre Pio, who died in 1968 and who was canonized in 2002, claimed to have first suffered the stigmata – holes in his hands and feet where nails pierced Christ at the Crucifixion – since he was a young priest aged 24.
He enjoyed a massive following with thousands visiting him and even today nearly 30 years after his death he has a millions of devotees around the world and he is especially popular with Italian celebrities such as Sophia Loren and Andrea Bocelli.


Nice reply from Catholic Anti-Defamation League (must keep them busy I guess ::)). I'm sure there is a logical fallacy or two in here...




The Catholic Anti-Defamation League have hit back at the author of the book, historian Sergio Luzzatto, saying:
"We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."



In my opinion saints are starting to make the Catholic Church look extremely silly, especially with the Mother Teresa fiasco.
They need more saints to keep the ball rolling, but it's getting harder and harder for them to keep pulling the wool over the follower's eyes.

[Matt]

Didn't the Ptolemeic Model of the universe carry the burden of papal infalliability until the Copernican model was accepted by the papacy. Apparently this means that God changed the way the universe worked to be in keeping with changing dogma.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I only learnt fairly recently what papal infallibility really meant. It seems a fairly common assumption that it means the pope is never wrong, but in reality it only applies in certain circumstances.

There is a lengthy article on Wikipedia that taught me quite a lot about the subject.

The more and more I learn about the Catholic Church, the harder it seems to be to separate it from the delusional and fraudulent behaviour we see in other paranormal areas. The whole sainthood/holy vision/stigmata/pareidolia thing is just a lot of made up nonsense, encouraged but not always ratified, by those at the top. It's like they don't want to put their names against a lot of the stuff because they know it is balony, but yet they don't want to state that outright because it is advantageous for their followers to keep on believing.

It is hard for me to see how any rational person can be a catholic.

[bobdezon]

Didn't the Ptolemeic Model of the universe carry the burden of papal infalliability until the Copernican model was accepted by the papacy. Apparently this means that God changed the way the universe worked to be in keeping with changing dogma.


Matt you obviously read too much, I thought I was the only person who would have thought to add that splendid counterpoint to papal logic. :'(

[Matt]

Matt you obviously read too much, I thought I was the only person who would have thought to add that splendid counterpoint to papal logic. :'(
Alas this is a case of talking too much rather than reading too much. I've yet to be able to find documentary evidence for this wonderful idea.

If you could point me in the right direction to some, I would be quite grateful.

[bobdezon]

It was my understanding that the ptolmaic model (geocentric) was also thought to be accurate by the church, who viewed the earth as the most important celestial body and as such the planets would revolve around gods creation. This idea reinforced the churches belief that even the universe revolved around the planet. If this idea was to be acceptable to all it must have been decreed by the pope to be true, if he never it would be a heresy unless the vatican was appeased.

some interesting stuff on wiki about this actually.



Nicolaus Copernicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus) published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Revolutionibus_Orbium_Coelestium) in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III), the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Osiander) stating that the system was a pure mathematical device and was not supposed to represent reality. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy) during the next 60 years.
There was an early suggestion among Dominicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order) that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther) once said:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanchthon), however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.
A famous quotation, often mis-attributed to John Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin), reads:

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

It has long been established that the line cannot be found in the works of Calvin [34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#_note-22) (see also [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#_note-23) and [36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#_note-24)). It has been suggested [37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#_note-25) that the quotation was originally sourced from the works of Lutheran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran) theologian Abraham Calovius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Calovius).
Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view. Pope Urban VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII), who had approved the idea of Galileo's publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo. Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.
The favored system had been that of Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy), in which the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system), in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system; the most prominent, Clavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clavius), commented that Tycho was "confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun." (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.
Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:

"Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree."[2] (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp)

Catholic scientists also:

"appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."

—Heilbron (1999)

Ill post my references Ive scraped together


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

And then there is this:

http://openseti.org/Docs/Copernican_Compromise.pdf

Hope that helps matt.

[Matt]

It was my understanding that the ptolmaic model (geocentric) was also thought to be accurate by the church, who viewed the earth as the most important celestial body and as such the planets would revolve around gods creation. This idea reinforced the churches belief that even the universe revolved around the planet. If this idea was to be acceptable to all it must have been decreed by the pope to be true, if he never it would be a heresy unless the vatican was appeased.

<...>


Hope that helps matt.


We studied Gallileo in the History of science at university and got a pretty good picture of how he put noses out of joint and of course how Coppernicus aggonised over his discoveries. I'm aware that the Catholic church supported the Ptollemeic model not least because of the spherical heavens agreeing with the Bible.

However the part I have not been able to confirm is that the Ptollemeic model was explicitly considered infalliable. Was it part of a Papal Bull or similar decree?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Matt,

The doctrine itself goes back only to 1870:

http://www.answers.com/topic/infallibility

[Admin]

Didn't the Ptolemeic Model of the universe carry the burden of papal infalliability until the Copernican model was accepted by the papacy. Apparently this means that God changed the way the universe worked to be in keeping with changing dogma.

Well if they can believe in the 'unity of the trinity' I'm sure two infallible popes with different views won't faze them too much.

[bobdezon]

If the pope declared it in an ex cathedra then it would offcially be a papal infalliablity clause. He speaks for gods holy see on earth when he does. Apparantly.

[Matt]

Matt,

The doctrine itself goes back only to 1870:

http://www.answers.com/topic/infallibility


Whilst the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was agreed in 1870 belief in papal infallibility and infallibility of certain decrees of the church predates this.

What I'd be looking for is a document in support of the Ptolemeic Model which concludes "He who does not believed, let him be anathema" or words to that effect.

[Legaleagle]

Referring back to the OP. I have always found the Padre Pio case interesting.

As a lad, I read about the antics of this particular Monk and the so called "Stigmata" and vividly recall my physical nausea at the description of the traumas his body is said to have undergone for his faith. The concept of a man suffering the wounds of Christ through no fault other than his own piety impressed me immensely, but at the same time the thought of fraud entered my cynical head. The more I heard and read about the guy, and the more I thought about the subject, the greater prominence the fraud idea took in my mind to the point where I had it nailed down (if you'll forgive the feeble attempt at humor) as a case of pious fraud.

Later in life I read Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and his description of Hell as taught to the young protagonist by Catholic Priests reproduced the same emotions in me, the same dizzying Nausea I had experienced on first reading the Padre Pio story.

Fast Forward to 2002. I took a trip to Rome with Mrs Legaleagle, who is a Catholic. We went to St. Peter's Basilica. She felt a sudden impulse to confess (why?). Now these Latin priests are not the same folk as our parsons and padres here in England, they are full of hellfire and brimstone. The upshot was that she came out of the confession booth in tears having been promised an eternal roasting for some minor infractions of the the RC moral code whose details I will not insult the forum by mentioning. But again, this headspinning physical nausea gripped me and we both had to retreat to the safe confines of a bar to drink and talk the thing over.

This was the same year that Pio was canonised, and his tasteless portrait seemed to adorn the facade of every public building in Rome, prayers were being offered for him in every church and chantry in the city, and it came to pass that Pio was canonised that very year by the blessed John Paul II (he of the dodgy bonfire photo).

Fast Forward again to the present day. I regularly spend time in rural Italy for reasons which will no doubt bore and horrify most of the forum, so I won't mention them. Now, these mountain villages often have roadside shrines in them celebrating some Saint or other, but mostly the "virgin" Mary. Well, new shrines to Padre Pio have been popping up like mushrooms and there seems to be a competition among these Italian Villagers as to who can waste the most money on erecting a gaudy monument to this gurning fraud. I kid you not, the village War Memorials are nothing compared to some of these monstrosities.

The things that strike me about all this

1) What the Catholic Faith is best at is Horror. The Catholics are the Hammer Horror of religions.

2) This whole Sainthood concept is like a football cup or Olympic games. Rome knows that what people want is a local team they can all rally round and Pio is it for the Italians, he is their religious equivalent of David Beckham. Someone the locals can cheer for.

3) I can understand, from a personal perspective, how people can be gripped by the sheer paralysing horror of the promise of helllfire and can repent on the basis of it. I Don't underestimate the power of the Hammer Horror bits of Catholicism on the imagination of the masses.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Whilst the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was agreed in 1870 belief in papal infallibility and infallibility of certain decrees of the church predates this.

What I'd be looking for is a document in support of the Ptolemeic Model which concludes "He who does not believed, let him be anathema" or words to that effect.

You may want to have look at this:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html


" Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo's works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis."

It is hardly a neutral source, so it has to be treated with caution. But I've never seen anything reputable to the contrary.

[Julia]

I regularly spend time in rural Italy for reasons which will no doubt bore and horrify most of the forum, so I won't mention them.

Oh, COME ON! After a remark like that we're dying to know what you do in rural Italy. Boring, yes, but horrific? Enquiring minds want to know!