16th century science and the Church

[petras52]

After reading some recent articles about Copernicus, I have several “what if” questions…If astromers like Copernicus and later Gallileo, refused to submit to the Chuches belief, at that time re the earth and the sun, were they truely commiting heresy and would it have been a mortal sin?

 

[manualman]

I say it depends.

Scenario #1: They defy the once generally accepted idea that the sun revolves around the earth and proceed to gather evidence that the earth orbits the sun. This may have ruffled feathers, but ultimately is not a matter of revelation so it cannot be heresy.

Scenario #2: They gather the above evidence, become convinced of a sun-centered solar system and argue that since the Bible has been traditionally interpreted as stating that the sun revolves around the earth, the bible must not be divinely inspired and inerrant. Here, the line is crossed between science and religion and heresy is committed.

Science is a great tool for answering questions about what, where, when and how. But it becomes a tyrannical master when allowed to define answers to questions about Who and Why.

 

[lemondiesel]

But it becomes a tyrannical master when allowed to define answers to questions about Who and Why.

and also the ultimate How.

All I really want to contribute. Discussing 15th century - present day Church will only cause me to bash this thread ha

so I will refrain.

 

[Abu]

petras52
After reading some recent articles about Copernicus, I have several “what if” questions…If astromers like Copernicus and later Gallileo, refused to submit to the Chuches belief, at that time re the earth and the sun, were they truely commiting heresy and would it have been a mortal sin?

From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities – that most Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology.

Copernicus was never denounced; he died in good standing with the Church. He was buried in the cathedral in Frombork (a city that is now a part of the Archdiocese of Warmia, Poland). The heliocentric theory that Copernicus advanced was indeed controversial during his lifetime. So controversial, in fact, that Copernicus delayed for years before publishing his masterpiece, De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium. – delayed because he feared an adverse reaction not from the Church, but from his fellow scholars.

Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the story about Galileo and Copernicus:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Curt Jester**;
**• Good thing the MSM has editors

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2010/05/good-thing-the-msm-has-editors/

has some interesting comments on the recent news article on Copernicus.

So I guess the accurate part of the story is that they spelled his name right.

He takes it from Catholic Culture; on the News.

There is a grain of truth to the notion that Church authorities were suspicious of Copernicus during his lifetime. At one point he was suspected of keeping a mistress; later he was suspected of Lutheran sympathies. But his scientific work never caused him any conflict with the Church.

 

[Loren_1of6]

Galileo was found guilty not of promoting Copernican theory, but of promoting it as fact. The models and math used did not fully explain a heliocentric system, so claiming that it was absolutely true and the only explanation was wrong.

In the same way, we can look at some of today’s science and see that the data don’t exactly add up to the conclusions drawn, so the conclusions are theoretical until new data comes to light.