Copernicus Persecuted?

[edwest2]

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.

Also Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for publishing a book that proposed the idea that the universe is infinite and contains many worlds and possibly life. He admittedly was a little loopy and he was not a trained scientist, but is that a reason to kill someone?

Then you have Savonarola, but I am not sure if he published anything. He just preached for the inner reform of the church, and to do away with all the excesses of worldliness he saw in the Church and with the Popes of the time. He preached a higher morality and the practice of Christian virtues. THAT, of course, didn’t fly with the Inquisitors, and he and some of his followers were horribly tortured and executed.

But your comment, Ed, did not really address the comments or questions in my post. Rather, you conveniently ignored them. Which is what the Church would like us all to do as well. Don’t you wonder how any of this could have happened, and how the Church could have strayed so far from the core teachings of Jesus - “Love your Neighbor as Yourself”? or “Treat others as you would have them treat you”? Do you think He could have possibly condoned these abominations? Doesn’t that bother you in the slightest?

To Christine77: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. And many blessings.

“Galileo would have been tortured or worse”? Can you cite a single publication that supports this assertion?

The Church did not stray from the core teachings of Jesus. Galileo was out of control. The Church gave him pause for thought but that did not stop him. So, he was placed under house arrest. As Defender of the Faith, the Church said, Look, Galileo, you’re running around yelling fact, fact, when your ideas have yet to be proved.

I do not wonder about it because from the earliest days of the Church, there were heretics attempting to undermine it, to subvert it and to confuse or anger the faithful in the process. To cause division and scandal whenever they could.

What bothers me is occasional posts on this forum that make assertions without support. That seek to place in the minds of readers terrible images without substantiating them.

If you take the time to read the detailed and lengthy investigations the Church made into various cases, I think you would gain a better understanding of the Church’s actions. As Pope John Paul II noted about Galileo, there were misunderstandings on both sides. He could only say this after careful study.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15725

Peace,
Ed

 

[cassini]

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.

Also Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for publishing a book that proposed the idea that the universe is infinite and contains many worlds and possibly life. He admittedly was a little loopy and he was not a trained scientist, but is that a reason to kill someone?

Then you have Savonarola, but I am not sure if he published anything. He just preached for the inner reform of the church, and to do away with all the excesses of worldliness he saw in the Church and with the Popes of the time. He preached a higher morality and the practice of Christian virtues. THAT, of course, didn’t fly with the Inquisitors, and he and some of his followers were horribly tortured and executed.

But your comment, Ed, did not really address the comments or questions in my post. Rather, you conveniently ignored them. Which is what the Church would like us all to do as well. Don’t you wonder how any of this could have happened, and how the Church could have strayed so far from the core teachings of Jesus - “Love your Neighbor as Yourself”? or “Treat others as you would have them treat you”? Do you think He could have possibly condoned these abominations? Doesn’t that bother you in the slightest?

To Christine77: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. And many blessings.

Galileo was over 70 so could not have received physical punishment. That was then the law of the Church.

Bruno was a multiple heretic and capable of bringing many other souls to hell with him. Churchmen of the day considered it better to burn him and thus save others. No doubt you would prefer to see him live and take other souls with him to hell.
This is what the Church feared from Galileo’s interpretation of Scripture. His heresy lived on to eliminate the authority of Scripture and render Genesis myth. No doubt uniformitarianism and evolutionism have caused many souls to lose faith and end up in hell. You also do the Devil’s work for him, not deliberately, but in ignorance. OH yes, the Devil is Much cleverer than you.

I know nothing about Savonarola,

As for Jesus, . Who do you think drowned the whole world with the Flood. Who do you think destroyed Sodom? Who do you think drowned the Egyptians in the Red Sea. I could go on but you probably do not believe such things happened, you are a Copernican, and Copernicans have their own interpretations of the Bible, don’t you?

As for your understanding of the Galileo case, you really know nothing so biased are you with your scientific illusions.

 

[cassini]

"

What bothers me is occasional posts on this forum that make assertions without support. That seek to place in the minds of readers terrible images without substantiating them.

If you take the time to read the detailed and lengthy investigations the Church made into various cases, I think you would gain a better understanding of the Church’s actions. As Pope John Paul II noted about Galileo, there were misunderstandings on both sides. He could only say this after careful study.

Peace,
Ed

There was NO misunderstanding on the Church’s side in 1633. Pope John Paul II’s speech to the PAS and the commissions report will go down in history as the most perverted of all accounts of the Galileo case.

 

[rpp]

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.

I went back and re-read your post. It appears that I may have misunderstood you. For that I apologize.

Galileo was prosecuted not for his ideas, but for his writing. In his can one could indeed separate his ideas from his writings.

First he taught as fact what was, at the time, an unprovable theory.

Next, at that time, many erroneously thought that certain passages in the Bible support an Earth-centered universe. Galileo used his theory not to refute this idea but to refute the theologians who support their erroneous geocentric view and to claim that Holy Scripture actually supports a Sun-centered universe.

Finally, in his final book, which was written in the form of a dialog between two men and a moderator, the character who tried to support geocentrism was using the words of the Pope and seemed to most readers to actually be the Pope, was mocked by the other character supporting a Sun centered solar system and the name of this unfortunate character was “Simplicitous”, as in simpleton.

It was this book that got Galileo in trouble. Not his ideas, but rather apparently publicly mocking the Holy Father. Who was, not incidentally, Galileo’s chief benefactor.

The finding of formal heresy in Galieo’s case had little to do with his theory, rather the fact that he was engaging in private interpretation of the Bible. As this is only about a hundred years after the Protestant Revolt, many in the Church were very nervous about that particular activity. Most of them could care less what was at the center of the Solar System. Of course, insulting the Pope did not really help Galileo with case much.

We actually see behavior on this forum similar to Galileo’s. Someone is so certain of their idea that they shout others down. Sometimes they are right, sometimnes they are wrong, but such people often offend many.

 

[grannymh]

Don’t you wonder how any of this could have happened, and how the Church could have strayed so far from the core teachings of Jesus - “Love your Neighbor as Yourself”? or “Treat others as you would have them treat you”? Do you think He could have possibly condoned these abominations? Doesn’t that bother you in the slightest?
To Christine77: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. And many blessings.

And what do you mean by the Church? If you check back to post 50, or read the correspondence that Cassin has, you will get an idea of the status of the people involved.

So what was happening in the universal church? Consider the Franciscans or any of the orders that were devoted to loving one’s neighbor. Then there were the people who were following Margaret Mary Alacoque. Speaking about preaching Jesus, consider what the Dominicans and Jesuits were doing. And don’t forget the Council of Trent which was preserving Christ’s teachings about His presence in the Eucharist. What about doctors and charitable care of the sick? Please, let’s put some balance into life.

 

[cassini]

I went back and re-read your post. It appears that I may have misunderstood you. For that I apologize.

Galileo was prosecuted not for his ideas, but for his writing. In his can one could indeed separate his ideas from his writings.

First he taught as fact what was, at the time, an unprovable theory.

Next, at that time, many erroneously thought that certain passages in the Bible support an Earth-centered universe. Galileo used his theory not to refute this idea but to refute the theologians who support their erroneous geocentric view and to claim that Holy Scripture actually supports a Sun-centered universe.

Finally, in his final book, which was written in the form of a dialog between two men and a moderator, the character who tried to support geocentrism was using the words of the Pope and seemed to most readers to actually be the Pope, was mocked by the other character supporting a Sun centered solar system and the name of this unfortunate character was “Simplicitous”, as in simpleton.

It was this book that got Galileo in trouble. Not his ideas, but rather apparently publicly mocking the Holy Father. Who was, not incidentally, Galileo’s chief benefactor.

The finding of formal heresy in Galieo’s case had little to do with his theory, rather the fact that he was engaging in private interpretation of the Bible. As this is only about a hundred years after the Protestant Revolt, many in the Church were very nervous about that particular activity. Most of them could care less what was at the center of the Solar System. Of course, insulting the Pope did not really help Galileo with case much.

We actually see behavior on this forum similar to Galileo’s. Someone is so certain of their idea that they shout others down. Sometimes they are right, sometimnes they are wrong, but such people often offend many.

rpp, why do you keep using the term ‘erroneous’. Can you show the FATHERS of the Church they were all in error. If you can, I suggest you start looking again for the one true religion that does not teach error.

 

[grannymh]

I suggest you start looking again for the one true religion that does not teach error.

And I humbly suggest that you go back to post 49 to find the statement of Pope Leo XIII. Then compare it to the statements of the Fathers listed on www.ScriptureCatholic.com. Of the handful of statements I checked, none specifically said anything which would come close to the requirements of Pope Leo XIII. Thus, the few nullifies the unanimity. Interestingly, this was the first time I saw that Pope Leo XIII actually said “pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals”

 

[Spirithound]

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!

Also Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for publishing a book that proposed the idea that the universe is infinite and contains many worlds and possibly life. He admittedly was a little loopy and he was not a trained scientist, but is that a reason to kill someone?

Bruno was executed by the civil authorities. The Church does not execute.

 

[rpp]

rpp, why do you keep using the term ‘erroneous’. Can you show the FATHERS of the Church they were all in error. If you can, I suggest you start looking again for the one true religion that does not teach error.

Dude, the Church has never taught geocentricism as part of the deposit of faith. Get your head out of the sand. That is science and the Church takes no position on science and never has.

The Early Church Fathers were also probably unaware of the germ theory of infection, that life cannot spontaneously appear and that oxygen, not air, is required for fire to burn and lots of other ideas. That does not make any of those realities false.

Finally, your support for this erroneous and utterly refuted idea is off topic. If you want to talk about geocentricism and try to convince people that this idea is part of the deposit of faith and salvation history, start a different thread. This thread is not about that erroneous idea. It is against forum rules to post off topic or hijack threads.

 

[edwest2]

Dude, the Church has never taught geocentricism as part of the deposit of faith. Get your head out of the sand. That is science and the Church takes no position on science and never has.

The Early Church Fathers were also probably unaware of the germ theory of infection, that life cannot spontaneously appear and that oxygen, not air, is required for fire to burn and lots of other ideas. That does not make any of those realities false.

Finally, your support for this erroneous and utterly refuted idea is off topic. If you want to talk about geocentricism and try to convince people that this idea is part of the deposit of faith and salvation history, start a different thread. This thread is not about that erroneous idea. It is against forum rules to post off topic or hijack threads.

“the Church takes no position on science”? What? Galileo? The Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Hello.

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

Second I have God’s word on it and I have the Church’s word on it. Geocentricism is beyond science to prove or falsify, therefore it is a matter of FAITH.

Not sure what Church you’re referring to, but it’s not the Catholic Church. And your claim about science not being able to prove or falsify geocentrism is completely unscientific.

 

[diggerdomer]

“Galileo would have been tortured or worse”? Can you cite a single publication that supports this assertion?

The Church did not stray from the core teachings of Jesus. Galileo was out of control. The Church gave him pause for thought but that did not stop him. So, he was placed under house arrest. As Defender of the Faith, the Church said, Look, Galileo, you’re running around yelling fact, fact, when your ideas have yet to be proved.

I do not wonder about it because from the earliest days of the Church, there were heretics attempting to undermine it, to subvert it and to confuse or anger the faithful in the process. To cause division and scandal whenever they could.

What bothers me is occasional posts on this forum that make assertions without support. That seek to place in the minds of readers terrible images without substantiating them.

If you take the time to read the detailed and lengthy investigations the Church made into various cases, I think you would gain a better understanding of the Church’s actions. As Pope John Paul II noted about Galileo, there were misunderstandings on both sides. He could only say this after careful study.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15725

Peace,
Ed

Galileo was not out of control. What source do you have for your idea of what Galileo thought and did?

 

[diggerdomer]

Galileo was over 70 so could not have received physical punishment. That was then the law of the Church.

I’ve never heard this before. Do you have a reference for this claim? Thanks.

This is what the Church feared from Galileo’s interpretation of Scripture. His heresy lived on to eliminate the authority of Scripture and render Genesis myth.

Galileo was not interpreting Scripture. What heresy are you claiming he was guilty of? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

I went back and re-read your post. It appears that I may have misunderstood you. For that I apologize.

Galileo was prosecuted not for his ideas, but for his writing. In his can one could indeed separate his ideas from his writings.

First he taught as fact what was, at the time, an unprovable theory.

Next, at that time, many erroneously thought that certain passages in the Bible support an Earth-centered universe. Galileo used his theory not to refute this idea but to refute the theologians who support their erroneous geocentric view and to claim that Holy Scripture actually supports a Sun-centered universe.

Finally, in his final book, which was written in the form of a dialog between two men and a moderator, the character who tried to support geocentrism was using the words of the Pope and seemed to most readers to actually be the Pope, was mocked by the other character supporting a Sun centered solar system and the name of this unfortunate character was “Simplicitous”, as in simpleton.

It was this book that got Galileo in trouble. Not his ideas, but rather apparently publicly mocking the Holy Father. Who was, not incidentally, Galileo’s chief benefactor.

The finding of formal heresy in Galieo’s case had little to do with his theory, rather the fact that he was engaging in private interpretation of the Bible. As this is only about a hundred years after the Protestant Revolt, many in the Church were very nervous about that particular activity. Most of them could care less what was at the center of the Solar System. Of course, insulting the Pope did not really help Galileo with case much.

We actually see behavior on this forum similar to Galileo’s. Someone is so certain of their idea that they shout others down. Sometimes they are right, sometimnes they are wrong, but such people often offend many.

He did not teach it as fact. He clearly wrote it in the style of comparing two theories, without claiming either was fact (i.e. the Copernican heliocentric model and the other geocentric model). He CLEARLY noted in the preface that he was discussing hypotheses and was NOT claiming Copernicus was right. He was not engaging in a private interpretation of the Bible, he was discussing scientific (i.e. philosophical, in the terms of their time) theories. He upheld what the Church (and the Bible) taught.

Galileo did not insult the Pope. When and how did he publicly mock him? I never heard that before. Unless you can show us where this is documented? Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

Galileo was not out of control. What source do you have for your idea of what Galileo thought and did?

Here is my source:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

Here is my source:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Peace,
Ed

Thanks.

Unfortunately, I was looking for a more objective source (i.e. history) or perhaps even some original sources (transcripts of the trial, letters, Church pronouncements, etc.). The source you cited is obviously apologetic, trying to prove a point or perspective that is a priori to any historical evidence. So, it’s quite selective in its interpretation of the historical evidence (as we all are I suppose). It’s certainly not authoritative Church teaching.

The piece you refer to is an opinion. There are things there I’d agree with but things I’d disagree with as well based on my own reading of history and science. Unfortunately the link you cited does not provide any references for people to educate themselves on regarding this issue.

I coincidentally just finished reading “Galileo’s Daughter” which relies on many primary sources to elucidate what really went on. Galileo was not out of control. He did not “force” any issue. He tried his best to comply with a Church that was in part driven by persons (personalities) who were later clearly proven wrong in their judgment of Galileo, science, and proper interpretation of Scripture.

(Edited)

%between%

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading that book. I thought it was wonderful. Really amazing, I highly recommend it. I didn’t come away thinking Galileo was at all arrogant, nor did I come away thinking his Discourses mocked the Church. I do think his Discourses mocked certain opinions, and certainly some who held those opinions where in the church…but I came away with the clear impression that he steadfastly did NOT mock the Church or the Pope…in fact he held them in the highest regard. I’d be interested to know where you read differently in that book.

 

[Axion]

Also Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for publishing a book that proposed the idea that the universe is infinite and contains many worlds and possibly life. He admittedly was a little loopy and he was not a trained scientist, but is that a reason to kill someone?

Nonsense. he was not killed for publishing any book. He claimed Jesus was a trickster and that he could replicate jesus’s miracles. He was offered many opportunities to stop repeating these things, and he refused each time. He was burned burt not for science.

Then you have Savonarola, but I am not sure if he published anything. He just preached for the inner reform of the church, and to do away with all the excesses of worldliness he saw in the Church and with the Popes of the time. He preached a higher morality and the practice of Christian virtues. THAT, of course, didn’t fly with the Inquisitors, and he and some of his followers were horribly tortured and executed.

Savonarola again was not a scientist. In fact he was an apocalyptic extremist best known for hostility to the rennaissance, and for book-burning. Paintings by Botticelli and others were also burned. He took control of Florence, and made homosexuality, previously punishable by a fine, punishable by death. he executed many people for these and other offenses. (His “higher-morality” perhaps?) And was finally, after a revolt in Florence, and a trial for heresy, executed in the same manner that he had put others to death.

I think this shows the falseness of some of the claims being made on these pages about the Church burning innocent scientists.

 

[Axion]

Coincidentally, I just finished reading that book. I thought it was wonderful. Really amazing, I highly recommend it. I didn’t come away thinking Galileo was at all arrogant, nor did I come away thinking his Discourses mocked the Church. I do think his Discourses mocked certain opinions, and certainly some who held those opinions where in the church…but I came away with the clear impression that he steadfastly did NOT mock the Church or the Pope…in fact he held them in the highest regard. I’d be interested to know where you read differently in that book.

Calling the Pope, who had previously been sympathetic, “simpleton” and so ridiculing his views is INDEED, mocking the Pope, and the Church, whatever your favourite book might say. Authors too have agendas to push. There is a big difference between saying “This is my theory”, which the priest, Copernicus said, and coming out and saying (falsely at that the time, because he had no proof) “I am right, and what the church says is idiocy”. Theorising about the movement of the earth and sun was accepted in academic terms, but not when used as a tool to declare that the Church was wrong and stupid - as Galileo did.

In saying that the bible passage, where the sun stood still, was false, Galileo made himself automatically guilty of heresy. Denying the truth of the bible was heresy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Calling the Pope, who had previously been sympathetic, “simpleton” and so ridiculing his views is INDEED, mocking the Pope, and the Church, whatever your favourite book might say. Authors too have agendas to push. There is a big difference between saying “This is my theory”, which the priest, Copernicus said, and coming out and saying (falsely at that the time, because he had no proof) “I am right, and what the church says is idiocy”. Theorising about the movement of the earth and sun was accepted in academic terms, but not when used as a tool to declare that the Church was wrong and stupid - as Galileo did.

In saying that the bible passage, where the sun stood still, was false, Galileo made himself automatically guilty of heresy. Denying the truth of the bible was heresy.

Where did Galileo call the Pope “simpleton”? Please let me know so I can look it up for myself. Which of Galileo’s writings was this in?

According to the Catholic Church, the Bible does not teach that Catholics have to believe the sun literally stood still when reading the book of Joshua. So, if Galileo did indeed write what you claim (where did he write this?) then he would seem to be in accord with the Catholic Church. Thanks for any clarification you can provide.