M
mardukm
Guest
To teach that the sun is the center of the universe is both foolish and false.
Blessings
- Status
Blessings
C
Cecilianus
Guest
To teach that science contradicts Scripture - as Galileo was - is both foolish and heretical.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Galileo suffered much more than a moratorium. The question is why is such-and-such a topic being placed under a restriction? And what are the consequences of violating such a moratorium? In the case of Galileo, the Church was clearly in error in banning such questions, and many would say erred in the punishment Galileo received.
V
Vince1022
Guest
And not true. So of course it’s foolish and false.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Galileo did not teach that science contradicts Scripture. As John Paul II noted, the Church was wrong in Her treatment of Galileo.
If you have any references that support such an idea that you claim about Galileo, please share.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Galileo, wrongly, took the Copernican model as fact, then reasoning that scripture and science cannot be in contradiction, promoted the idea that a new hermeneutic was required. He was correct, and uncontested, about the lack of contradiction, but the call for a new hermeneutic was outside of his authority, and premature: he was wrong about out the science - a fact which was known in his time consolidated opinion against him as he transformed the matter into a political football. At the time, moreover, there was scarcely any sense of “scientific truth”. Galileo was important in starting to change thinking on this matter, but the reduction to “truth” did not and could not happen until Newton: how could we distinguish between mathematical models without an underlying physical theory of gravitation? The criterion of beauty and simplicity was insufficient, it is not scientific and led Galileo into the error of insisting on circular orbits.
As to JPII’s apology: give us the details, and the details of the finding of the commission that he established. The ban on Galileo’s teaching was lifted about two and a half centuries earlier. What, precisely, was the apology about? One thing for sure, he did not vindicate Galileo’s actions and his thinking in general. Give us the details so that we can try to understand the point of your remark.
As for reading: here’s a terrific link.
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
V
Vince1022
Guest
Do you mean the Copernican model is not fact?
V
Vince1022
Guest
V
Vince1022
Guest
Interesting. Much quite good, I think, though clearly parts are subjective and polemical.
I appreciated this quote: “Galileo’s condemnation was certainly unjust,”
V
Vince1022
Guest
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLENARY SESSION
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences Saturday, October 31, 1992
D
dvdjs
Guest
If you question is: was the model proposed by Copernicus correct - ie did it correctly summarize the motion of the planets - then no, of course not. He had a great idea, but with a big flaw - circular orbits. Because of that flaw he system still had some of the clumsiness of the Ptolemaic system; it was not worked out as well as the Ptolemaic system and gave worse predictions. By the time that Galileo was pontificating, the problem with circular orbits was understood, as was the solution to that problem. Galileo, however, remained insistent on circular orbits. This is all in the link that I gave.
Thanks for your link. Is this the famous apology? I missed the apology. The address does of course fault theologians who were resistant to new understanding on the basis of their assumption of a literal interpretation, and who used that hermeneutic to proclaim scientific truth - outside of their competence. But it points out the falsity of the myth that that was in some way the entrenched position or dogmatic expression of the church. It wisely does not haggle over the flaws in what Galileo was teaching (or in his personality). (Neither did it incorrectly affirm them.) It was also, interestingly, silent on the matter of scientists reaching beyond their competence into questions of theology. In the age of Hitchens and so forth, perhaps that would have been a nice addition.
D
dvdjs
Guest
What parts are clearly subjective and polemical?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Why is that? There really wasn’t a foundation for this conclusion in the article - even without the “certainly”.
A
Aramis
Guest
Copernicus’ model used a Sol-centered system, used circular orbits for planets out of lack of better data, postulated the stars as unmoving, and perhaps even orbiting the Sun; only two bodies had others orbiting them: Sol and Terra. Copernicus model was able to show clearly the phase and retrograde behaviors consistently, but not accurately for time.
Gallileo’s model took it further: Sol as the center of the universe, circular orbits, noting correctly that there were satelites of Jupiter and Saturn as well as Terra, insisted on circular orbits despite their having been shown to be wrong, insisted that it contradicted scripture, and in the dialogue used to present the two sides he portrayed the proponent of the geocentric model as dim-witted and foolish.
It’s that last bit which specifically got him in the hot water.
His insistence on circles was a pernicious fallacy which he held, despite it having been shown to be wildly inaccurate and requiring inconsistent speeds. Note that, for most of the 8 planets, a circle drawn on a sheet of paper is accurate enough to be representative… and the elipse not severe enough to be noticed without measuring. But it was a known error at the time. Kepler had used an ellipse to produce accurate predictives for Mars.
His Holiness Urban VIII had restricted Galileo to presenting both sides fairly ans as theories; Galileo presented both sides, but in a manner that made the geocentric appear to be a buffoon’s position, and also many read it as making fun of the pope, and presenting heliocentrism as fact. For a cleric, minor or major, to do so, was a major error in judgment, and a violation of his duties as a cleric.
Gallileo’s model took it further: Sol as the center of the universe, circular orbits, noting correctly that there were satelites of Jupiter and Saturn as well as Terra, insisted on circular orbits despite their having been shown to be wrong, insisted that it contradicted scripture, and in the dialogue used to present the two sides he portrayed the proponent of the geocentric model as dim-witted and foolish.
It’s that last bit which specifically got him in the hot water.
His insistence on circles was a pernicious fallacy which he held, despite it having been shown to be wildly inaccurate and requiring inconsistent speeds. Note that, for most of the 8 planets, a circle drawn on a sheet of paper is accurate enough to be representative… and the elipse not severe enough to be noticed without measuring. But it was a known error at the time. Kepler had used an ellipse to produce accurate predictives for Mars.
His Holiness Urban VIII had restricted Galileo to presenting both sides fairly ans as theories; Galileo presented both sides, but in a manner that made the geocentric appear to be a buffoon’s position, and also many read it as making fun of the pope, and presenting heliocentrism as fact. For a cleric, minor or major, to do so, was a major error in judgment, and a violation of his duties as a cleric.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Not only was his use of circular orbits and epicycles wrong, he was wrong to put “the sun” as the center of everything (the actual center is the center of mass of the entire system, something we didn’t understand until Newton - which happens to be located somewhere in the Sun, but not in the exact center of it, and in the early universe when the Sun may have had a binary partner the center of mass would have not been).
And because Copernicus’ model was so much more complicated than Ptolemy’s and did not really give much better explanatory power than the latter, by the scientific method it was really not the right model.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually Copernicus made a grat stride toward simplification, but the simple version wasn’t right and still required all sorts of epicycles and such to get reasonable agreement between and the model and astronomical obeservations.
M
melekali
Guest
In the Encyclical by Pius XII, May 1, 1946, DEIPARAE VIRGINIS MARIAE, this Pope points out referencing the following which both seem to indicate Mary died before she was assumed:
- Gregorian sacramentary Adrian I to Charlemagne: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death…”
- Byzantine liturgy connects the bodily Assumption with the dignity of Theotokos & virginal motherhood granted her: “God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” (Menaei Totius Anni)
M
melekali
Guest
We all believe in her perpetual virginity and probably her queen-ship in heaven.
V
Vico
Guest
The word guilt there is not a personal guilt, the word does not correspond to the normal use of the English word guilt, rather means imputed consequences.
It is generally believed by Latin Catholic theologians that Mary died a physical death.
However, we see in the writings of Saint John Chrysotsom that infants are baptised to receive gifts from God which they lack at birth:
“that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit”.
We need sanctification and justice, which are what are described as grace (gratia, Charis) in the Latin doctrines, so there is essential agreement about the need for baptism to provide what is missing for an infant or adult.
This is what the Theotokos had at birth in anticipation of her acceptance of Our Lord. She was preserved from the moment of the Conception of Saint Anne, rather than from the moment of recognition of it at the Annunciation: “Chaire, Kecharitomene**”**.
V
Vince1022
Guest
The more fundamental point was not of course elliptical vs. circular orbits. The concern that involved the Church, because of Biblical interpretation, was whether or not the Earth was the center of the universe. Both Copernicus and Galileo claimed and proved that the Earth was not, contrary to what had been assumed by many based on their interpretation of the biblical account. Galileo was not condemned (persecuted) by the Church based on circular vs. other orbits.
If you question is: was the model proposed by Copernicus correct - ie did it correctly summarize the motion of the planets - then no, of course not. He had a great idea, but with a big flaw - circular orbits.
- Status