Thank you for the points. As to your last points, I have no idea, but I suspect that tey are not correct. The pope cannot speak infallibly about matter outside faith and morals… saying the Pope can teach about science is like saying the pope favoring one soccer team over another is equally infallible, which he, obviously, is not.I’ll ask.
He said that both are motivated by fear, and science and the church were a lot more closely related back then, not actually too dissimilar from each other.
The source is apparently the Papal Condemnation of Galileo from 22 June 1633: law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Also, is it true that Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty? Because this is what ScriptureCatholic.com, which favors Geocentrism, says.
The first that comes to mind is Giordano Bruno, who followed Copernicus’ thought and preceded Galileo (and as such surely contributed to Galileo’s caution, for fear of suffering the same consequences).More rubbish from someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about.
What scientists exactly were “burned at the stake” for their discoveries?
Let’s see the list…
His writing was offensive because some ecclesiastical authorities thought his ideas contradicted Scripture. How can you disassociate his writings from his ideas? His writings expressed his ideas. Unless you know how his writings were offensive in a context other than the ideas his writings expressed being offensive?To answer your original question, I would refer you to the well reserached book I mention by Timothy Ferris. As he is a non-Catholic scientific historian, his perspective is worth respect. Galileo was not prosecuted for his ideas. He was prosecuted principly because his writeing were offensive to the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
So, from your post, you are saying you are unwilling to learn thde what really happened. Yet you call yourself “catholic”. (lowercase intentional)His writing was offensive because some ecclesiastical authorities thought his ideas contradicted Scripture. How can you disassociate his writings from his ideas? His writings expressed his ideas. Unless you know how his writings were offensive in a context other than the ideas his writings expressed being offensive?
Game, Set, Match?? You could at least give me the chance to return the serve. Although the document cited with a link by Ed certainly favors the Catholic perspective, I will accept that and use it to bolster my points.Game, set and match.
Bruno was a heretic. Wikipedia lists several charges and cites a source.The first that comes to mind is Giordano Bruno, who followed Copernicus’ thought and preceded Galileo (and as such surely contributed to Galileo’s caution, for fear of suffering the same consequences).
That’s not proof, though. That’s speculation based on circumstantial evidence. There are many, many reasons he might have delayed publishing that don’t involve persecution.He says that the proof is in the long delay before publishing, his correspondence with the church, and the dedication, to solicit favor
“Officially declared” and “condemned” can mean just about anything. The true teachings of the Catholic Church are found in its Catechism.The source is apparently the Papal Condemnation of Galileo from 22 June 1633: law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Also, is it true that Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty? Because this is what ScriptureCatholic.com, which favors Geocentrism, says.
Here is where things get twisted.Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14)
What this personal opinion above does is to juxtapose two distinctly different actions on the part of the Fathers, making it look like they are equally the same. To figure this out, one has to reread Pope Leo XIII explanation (above) in which he talks about interpretation in “one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals…” Pope Leo XIII is not talking about the right of the Fathers to hold personal opinions about the science of the universe.In other words, when the Fathers are unanimous about an interpretation of Scripture, their understanding comes from the Sacred Deposit of Faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles. The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures to support a geocentric cosmology.
Blessings,"…interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity** clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic** faith…”
The signatures are those of individual judges. Note that three judges did not sign. This format indicates the probability that the matter was handled similar to what is now known as a Court of Canon Law. Canon law or rules provide the norms for good order in the visible society of the Catholic Church. This is not the same as a Church Council.I’ll ask.
The source is apparently the Papal Condemnation of Galileo from 22 June 1633: law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
The Church does not and never has taught Geocentricism is true. Many people held that belief, and now we know that it is false. No matter, it has absolutely nothing to do with Deposit of faith.As it happens this thread has a similar subject to another called GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE ongoing at the moment. I am fascinated with so many threads all debating this subject on this forum this past year. I am also fascinated. but not suprised at the number of wanna-be-theologians that come out of the woodwork to give THEIR judgement on the Galileo case that has its beginning with Copernicus.
Perhaps the greatest crime of all is the IGNORANCE surrounding this affair, and that includes ME up to the day 15 years ago when with the grace of God I finally found the KEY to the truth.
The KEY is the problem relativity holds for science. In other words, the problem trying to determine FIXTURE in SPACE. If anyone does not understand this they PLEASE LEAVE THE THREAD BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER FIND THE TRUTH. Empirical science CANNOT determine if the sun moves relative to the earth or if the earth moves relative to the sun. In other words, empirical science CANNOT falsify geocentricism.
Here is PROOF that the Church of 1616 was not in error. ACCORDINGLY, the WHOLE Galileo affair must now be reread in the light of this UNDENIABLE paradigm.
Now we come to so-called Catholic response to this. Any Catholic worth his or her salt should be dancing in the intellectual and historical street at this long hidden TRUTH. But what happens. NOTHING, ZERO response. Not one ounce of REAL GRACE left in the COPERNICANS. They PREFER to believe the Church was wrong and to try to lessen this error with doctrinal and theological excuses.
And that is what threads like this produce, some truths but soon challenged by the apologists and minimisers
My advice to all is that you can quote as many sources as you like but they are USELESS, The only sources that determine this affair are those OF THE CHURCH.
If that was all that was involved, it would be chilling. The inital role of the Church was to protect the faith which got complicated in the Renaissance. However, the Renaissance was complicated by the Reformation which was complicated by the rivalry between universities which was complicated by the general desire for power which was complicated by the availability of power and so on and so on.Does anyone wonder how and why the Church could punish someone for publishing a book?
Please provide a list of anyone who was tortured or executed by the Church for publishing a book.Does anyone wonder how and why the Church could punish someone for publishing a book? I am not talking about condemning it or the author, or prohibiting Catholics from reading it, but actual, physical punishment. Imprisonment, torture, even execution!
How could the Church presume to tell someone what they could or could not think or write? How could they enforce civil laws unless they WERE the civil authority or had the cooperation of the civil authority to enforce their decrees and condemnations. What right under Heaven did they have to do this? How can anyone justify these totally un-Christian acts over hundreds of years?
I guess I knew that this happened in the past, but didn’t really consider that the Church was acting as the government or in conjunction with it.
That is really a chilling thought. Very unsettling. Can you imagine if that could occur today? Proscribing one of our most cherished freedoms? Very Orwellian, don’t you think?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. I am willing to learn what really happened. Did I lead you to believe otherwise? What did I say that you think is contrary to what really happened? Thank you.So, from your post, you are saying you are unwilling to learn thde what really happened. Yet you call yourself “catholic”. (lowercase intentional)
Why then was Galileo found suspect of formal heresy by the Church?The Church does not and never has taught Geocentricism is true. Many people held that belief, and now we know that it is false. No matter, it has absolutely nothing to do with Deposit of faith.
The claims in this post are laughably ignorant of basic physics. As a former astronomer and someone who understands orbital mechanics, this post does nothing else but make me sad about the poor state of education.
I will not debate the silly notion of Geocentricism as it has been demonstrably and utterly refuted both observationally and by the fact that we have flown to other world in our solar system, a feat of navigation that would have failed had we relied on an Earth-centered model of the solar system.
And then the Crusades came charging in and killed off the lot of them.If that was all that was involved, it would be chilling. The inital role of the Church was to protect the faith which got complicated in the Renaissance. However, the Renaissance was complicated by the Reformation which was complicated by the rivalry between universities which was complicated by the general desire for power which was complicated by the availability of power and so on and so on.
In other words, there are many posters who can help you with your questions. Do hope they do.
Yep you won. (and I’m Catholic!) Galileo was kind of arrogant, and his Discourses really did mock the church, but it was rather brilliant, I read “Galileo’s Daughter” (his daughter was a nun) and what you say here agrees with that book. I thought it was interesting that the passage in the Bible where the sun stands still for Joshua was a major proof of the geocentric theory by the church.Game, Set, Match?? You could at least give me the chance to return the serve. Although the document cited with a link by Ed certainly favors the Catholic perspective, I will accept that and use it to bolster my points.
First, to again answer the original question, Copernicus was not persecuted for his theory. Several posts, including one of mine, pointed that out. However, his idea of heliocentricity WAS, when Galileo made and reported observations which confirmed that theory. As has been stated, the theories of these gentlemen were not totally accurate, since the sun was not the center of the universe, just our solar system, and it did move. But they made a big step in showing that the EARTH was NOT the center of the solar system or the universe, and that the universe was a lot bigger than most people had imagined up to that time.
And the prevailing thought is that Copernicus waited to formally publish his theory as he was not in the position to back it up with evidence. That came later with Kepler and Galileo, among others.
A good book to read about this is “Copernicus’ Secret” by J. Repcheck.
Now, back to the Galileo tennis match. Please keep in mind that the other side (rpp & Timothysis) is playing doubles, but that’s okay. It makes it more even. (the quotes are from their cited article).
What did Galileo do wrong?
According to the document cited, **“Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day.” ** Scripture scholars "did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense."
So it wasn’t that Galileo was reporting his discoveries about the solar system, or advocating for the Copernican theory, it was that he was trying to tell the Church what to believe? I can just see Galileo telling the Pope or Scripture scholars what they must believe or how to interpret the bible!
"had [Galileo] not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did." But wait, apparently he got into trouble for not backing off from the “physical truth”. So, it is Galileo’s fault for reporting his findings and not accepting “scriptural truth” over physical truth, the observed evidence.
"he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.” In this statement we get to the crux of the whole issue from the Church’s point of view. Galileo wasn’t proposing new theology, he was proposing new science which THREATENED existing theology.
What did the Pope do?
"The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616." The commission “forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory.” (it was a split vote, folks).
It was okay for Galileo to perhaps imagine it or dream about it, but he couldn’t “retain” these ideas, mull them over, or “defend” them. So the Church told Galileo he couldn’t stand up for the truth as he saw it. Theology based on myth trumped science! (Looks like an “ace” for me.)
When Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to write a treatise presenting both sides of the matter, “the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio". Simplicio was the proponent of the Church’s side, which was the losing one in the book. The Pope was understandably angry.
**“The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.” **So perhaps the problem was that Galileo appeared to mock the Pope (to tell the truth, he did). But I can see how Galileo was getting very frustrated at this point; I have had the same frustrations myself recently over obtuse thinking. And the separation was probably a good thing, considering the Church’s track record on science. And I like that they use the term “infamous”. (Looks like another point por moi.)
So Galileo was punished, but being by this time an old man, it was reduced to “house arrest.”
**“his works were eventually condemned.” **Oh, yes, we can’t forget that Galileo’s writings, as well as others like his, were banned. Well, not really banned, because they were already published and people were actually reading them and learning something new about the universe they lived in (no thanks to the Church). But you had to be circumspect so that you weren’t excommunicated for thinking the earth was not the center of the universe. (Question: Did they ever go back and “un-excommunicate” the people they excommunicated in error?) (Looks like another winner)
Was the Church Wrong?
Well, duh, yes. But we can’t say that because the Church is never wrong, and never changes, and knows more than everyone else about such things, and, and….
But yes, the Church can make mistakes, and can admit that Sacred Scripture is not a good thing to base your science on. (I think we are at “break point” here).
Did they Admit their mistake, and how did they make up for it?
“the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.”
Well, yes and no. They admit that the condemnation was wrong and that he was mistreated by the Church. But it took a long time and overwhelming evidence that Galileo was on the right track. I bet he really appreciated those stamps (I wonder if one shows him standing in front of the “rack”, just in case he didn’t recant).
So thanks, rpp and Timothysis, for feeding me those lob shots and helping me win the match. Of course, I did have people like Copernicus,Galileo, Einstein and others helping out.
My post mentioned physical punishment and imprisonment. There is every indication that Galileo would have been tortured or worse if he had not recanted. That info comes from Catholic publications.Please provide a list of anyone who was tortured or executed by the Church for publishing a book.
Peace,
Ed