Copernicus Persecuted?

[rpp]

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?

In his book, Dialogo, published in 1632.

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.

This also appeared in Dialogo. In that book he tried to interpret Holy Scripture. That is the book that got him into all the trouble.

Further, Galileo did indeed teach his (at the time) hypothesis as a fact. But he was not a complete fool. He did not so much do this in his books, thought his disclaimers at the beginings were generally considered inadequate based on the standards of the time, but pincipaly in his public presentations, which could more easily be dismissed as “some muisunderstood me”.

 

[rpp]

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

Peace,
Ed

By my statement, I meant that the Church does not endorse or support a particular scientific theory and that science and faith, while separate, are complementary. Scientific theories and ideas are not part of the deposit of faith or salvation history. The only arguable exception to this is that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were actual persons from whom we all descend.

The Churchhas a very long history of supporting technical and scientific research.

 

[diggerdomer]

In his book, Dialogo, published in 1632.

This also appeared in Dialogo. In that book he tried to interpret Holy Scripture. That is the book that got him into all the trouble.

Further, Galileo did indeed teach his (at the time) hypothesis as a fact. But he was not a complete fool. He did not so much do this in his books, thought his disclaimers at the beginings were generally considered inadequate based on the standards of the time, but pincipaly in his public presentations, which could more easily be dismissed as “some muisunderstood me”.

Well, Galileo got the book approved by the Roman official in charge of reviewing books (i.e. the equivalent of the censor and imprimatur)…so I find it hard to believe that Galileo really wrote these things and it got approved by the Vatican official responsible for reviewing books. Rome approved its publication, and after it was published some people had issues with it and convinced the Pope of their view. The book I read, “Galileo’s Daughter” (not a Catholic or religious book, just a biography/history work, no bias religiously one way or another) gave the exact opposite impression of what you claim, and had the historical references and footnotes to support it.

You even seem to imply that in fact he DIDN’T teach anything as fact contrary to Church decrees in his writing, and yet it’s his writing that was the cause of him being hauled before the Inquisition. So…was it what he wrote in the so-called “Dialogue” that got him in trouble, or not (in your opinion)?

 

[rpp]

Well, Galileo got the book approved by the Roman official in charge of reviewing books (i.e. the equivalent of the censor and imprimatur)…so I find it hard to believe that Galileo really wrote these things and it got approved by the Vatican official responsible for reviewing books. Rome approved its publication, and after it was published some people had issues with it and convinced the Pope of their view. The book I read, “Galileo’s Daughter” (not a Catholic or religious book, just a biography/history work, no bias religiously one way or another) gave the exact opposite impression of what you claim, and had the historical references and footnotes to support it.

I had not heard that the book had been approved. However, since that book was cited as the reason for his triel and was used as the principal evidence against him, I am not certain what your point is. are you saying that they just decided they did not like him and invented something for.

It appears that my earlier comment may be more accurate, you really are not interested in what really happened.

You even seem to imply that in fact he DIDN’T teach anything as fact contrary to Church decrees in his writing, and yet it’s his writing that was the cause of him being hauled before the Inquisition. So…was it what he wrote in the so-called “Dialogue” that got him in trouble, or not (in your opinion)?

If you believe that I implied that, you must also have noticed that I implied the sky is orange, fish need bicycles and that Obama is actually a decent person.

 

[diggerdomer]

If you believe that I implied that, you must also have noticed that I implied the sky is orange, fish need bicycles and that Obama is actually a decent person.

What? Sorry, you lost me with that non sequitur. Thanks for any help.

 

[diggerdomer]

I had not heard that the book had been approved. However, since that book was cited as the reason for his triel and was used as the principal evidence against him, I am not certain what your point is. are you saying that they just decided they did not like him and invented something for.

Maybe this excerpt from the Vatican web site will help: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_01051995_doc_ii-1995-doc_en.html

Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the section labelled “science and faith”

It appears that my earlier comment may be more accurate, you really are not interested in what really happened.

I’m at least as interested as you are. I think more, actually. YOu didn’t know Galileo’s book was approved. I shared that information with you (i’d expect it to be available from any reputable, historic work on Galileo. If you need further references let me know, I can go find the book in the library again and provide citations, though it will take me a few days due to my schedule) . I’m getting the impression you are attacking me personally and putting me down. Sorry if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to be the way to learn more. (for instance you made some remark previously about “catholic” and whether it has a capital “c” or not…whatever that’s referring to).

 

[diggerdomer]

I had not heard that the book had been approved. However, since that book was cited as the reason for his triel and was used as the principal evidence against him, I am not certain what your point is. are you saying that they just decided they did not like him and invented something for.

It appears that my earlier comment may be m"ore accurate, you really are not interested in what really happened.

If you believe that I implied that, you must also have noticed that I implied the sky is orange, fish need bicycles and that Obama is actually a decent person.

Another good reference I found on the web, a translation of John Paul II’s address following the work he directed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to take regarding the Galileo case:

its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

I was particularly struck by comments that Pope JPII made such as " Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him."

I’d strongly recommend that anyone interested in this topic read the whole address.

 

[edwest2]

By my statement, I meant that the Church does not endorse or support a particular scientific theory and that science and faith, while separate, are complementary. Scientific theories and ideas are not part of the deposit of faith or salvation history. The only arguable exception to this is that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were actual persons from whom we all descend.

The Churchhas a very long history of supporting technical and scientific research.

Of course it does. I don’t know how many times people have posted here that Pope John Paul II said, “Evolution is more than a hypothesis.” Why is that a big deal? Because people who believe the Church is ‘wrong’ about a lot of science want Christians who are skeptical of evolution to think, Hey! Your Pope said it’s OK.

The outside world is connecting what the Church is saying to science all of the time.

There is nothing arguable about Adam and Eve. Our first parents, period. But that offends some people who have decided:

A) We’re too smart to believe that. They believe ‘science’ has removed that idea from the realm of possibility. Science cannot demonstrate that. Just as science could not explain how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, turned water into wine or calmed a storm with His word. There will be events that are outside of the ability of science to investigate much less demonstrate as true.

B) Genesis is a myth.

That game is being played here constantly. Materialistic, no God involved evolution is being marketed here all the time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cassini]

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.

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.

Pity you were not around in 1633 you could have told Pope Urban VIII that and saved Galileo from trial.

Anyone who thinks the thread COPERNICUS PERSECUTED has nothing to do with GEOCENTRICISM and ‘It is against forum rules to post off topic or hijack threads.’ either is drunk or has not reached the age of reason. If you are so smart DUDE, ask a moderator to decide.

I will answer other replies in time. Was at my daughter’s wedding today.

 

[chaunceygardner]

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

This sounds suspicously like the Passion of Christ. Who executed Jesus? The Romans, of course. But would they have executed Him if the Temple authorities hadn’t acted as they did and accused him of insurrection against Roman rule?

You are playing with words here, friend. It was the Inquisition that condemned Bruno. His blood was on their hands too (and you can take the meaning of that any way you like).

 

[rpp]

Pity you were not around in 1633 you could have told Pope Urban VIII that and saved Galileo from trial.

Anyone who thinks the thread COPERNICUS PERSECUTED has nothing to do with GEOCENTRICISM and ‘It is against forum rules to post off topic or hijack threads.’ either is drunk or has not reached the age of reason. If you are so smart DUDE, ask a moderator to decide.

I will answer other replies in time. Was at my daughter’s wedding today.

Since there is already a thread on your disproved assertion, I have taken you up on your offer and have reported your attempt to hijack this thread to the moderators.

Also, do not send me any PMs, that will also get you reported to moderators.

 

[rpp]

This sounds suspicously like the Passion of Christ. Who executed Jesus? The Romans, of course. But would they have executed Him if the Temple authorities hadn’t acted as they did and accused him of insurrection against Roman rule?

You are playing with words here, friend. It was the Inquisition that condemned Bruno. His blood was on their hands too (and you can take the meaning of that any way you like).

No he is not. Civil authorities arrested and executed Bruno for witchraft. The Church was not only not involved but actually plead to the authoroties for mercy. their pleas were rejected as the area where Bruno was arrested was principaly inhabited bu Hugonaughts who hated the Church. the authorities who executed him were PROTESTANTS!

 

[chaunceygardner]

No he is not. Civil authorities arrested and executed Bruno for witchraft. The Church was not only not involved but actually plead to the authoroties for mercy. their pleas were rejected as the area where Bruno was arrested was principaly inhabited bu Hugonaughts who hated the Church. the authorities who executed him were PROTESTANTS!

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Bruno’s imprisonment and execution. They left out the parts about the torture:

"in February, 1593, Bruno was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of the Inquisition. Historians have striven in vain to discover the explanation of this long delay on the part of the Roman authorities. In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). "

I guess you might say that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong on this, but every other source I have looked at seems to agree.

I would respectfully suggest you may have your head in the sand, rpp. You should realize that if you keep doing that people will have to take everything you post with a grain of salt.

Keep the faith.

 

[chaunceygardner]

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 but not for science.

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.

What I am picking up from this and several other posts is that it was okay to torture and kill people, because they weren’t really scientists! That makes murder acceptable, if they are just regular innocent people, and not innocent scientists? You are trying to split hairs to make the reality of the inquisition appear not as “black” as it was.

Then we have this post from Cassini:

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.

Yes, I would, yes, yes, yes! I would take that chance. Should we torture and kill anyone and everyone that some authority perceives as a threat to our faith or the faith of someone else? Well, I guess that would be okay, because that’s exactly what happened to JESUS.

Don’t you see what you are saying? That we should do to others what the Romans and Temple Priests did to our Lord and Savior? That makes us no better, and possibly worse, than them (because we have God’s word and example to guide us).

**But you don’t see that, do you? **

Perhaps I can’t say anything that would help you see, but perhaps Jesus could:

**“But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.”

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.”**

Whose example do you want to follow: That of pagan Rome?..or that of Jesus?

As for me, I will go with the Lord.

 

[rpp]

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Bruno’s imprisonment and execution. They left out the parts about the torture:

"in February, 1593, Bruno was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of the Inquisition. Historians have striven in vain to discover the explanation of this long delay on the part of the Roman authorities. In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). "

I guess you might say that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong on this, but every other source I have looked at seems to agree.

I would respectfully suggest you may have your head in the sand, rpp. You should realize that if you keep doing that people will have to take everything you post with a grain of salt.

Keep the faith.

Sorry. I got Bruno confused with someone else. Thannk you for the correction, despite the fact that, like virtually everything else you post, it was clearly meaqn-spirited.

Interesting that you left out the next few sentences. Apparently it did not support your rabid anti-Catholic bigotry. So let’s finish the paragraph you so unskillfully editted.

Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

Full article. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Giordano_Bruno

By the way, if you send me another PM, email, post on my profile message wall or use any other method to personally harass me further in any way, I will report you to the moderators. I am posting this warning here to let others know that you engage in that kind of unacceptable behavior.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Interesting that you left out the next few sentences. Apparently it did not support your rabid anti-Catholic bigotry. So let’s finish the paragraph you so unskillfully editted.- rpp

You are correct that I did not include it in my quote. I wasn’t sure it was germaine to the point I was making in response to your post, and I thought you might claim I was quoting it to further condemn the actions of the Church.

Also, as I asked in a response to Axion, is a person’s theological beliefs a reason to torture and murder them?

I used the public message post to apologize to rpp, since that was the only means he allowed me to use. I also used it to acknowledge and agree to his request, so that he and anyone looking at his profile would see it. I also posted it on my own profile. I really don’t know how I can be more civil and respectful.

Peace to you.

 

[grannymh]

Also, as I asked in a response to Axion, is a person’s theological beliefs a reason to torture and murder them?
Peace to you.

To do a bit of research, I found “Salem Witchcraft Trials 1692.” This interesting site answers the question ”Why did this travesty of justice occur?" Sorry, I don’t know how to link this, so put “Salem Witch Trials” in Google.

To answer your question about a reason to murder someone. It is the same reason that Columbine High School Massacre happened, going postal happens, Communism happened, a friend’s son stabbed two women.

 

[chaunceygardner]

To do a bit of research, I found “Salem Witchcraft Trials 1692.” This interesting site answers the question ”Why did this travesty of justice occur?" Sorry, I don’t know how to link this, so put “Salem Witch Trials” in Google.

To answer your question about a reason to murder someone. It is the same reason that Columbine High School Massacre happened, going postal happens, Communism happened, a friend’s son stabbed two women.

Well, not quite. Three of the four instances you give were one time occurrences, were done by one or two individuals, and generally accompanied by emotional stress or mental illness. The Inquisition was a planned, sanctioned, organized program, stretching over centuries. The Catholic Church is not alone in having this kind of black mark in their history, as you point out about the Salem Witchcraft trials. There are many other examples within Christian faiths and outside of Christianity. What some people have done to other people in the name of God or Heaven, or to elevate one faith above another, is a very sad part of human history.

 

[grannymh]

Well, not quite. Three of the four instances you give were one time occurrences, were done by one or two individuals, and generally accompanied by emotional stress or mental illness. The Inquisition was a planned, sanctioned, organized program, stretching over centuries. The Catholic Church is not alone in having this kind of black mark in their history, as you point out about the Salem Witchcraft trials. There are many other examples within Christian faiths and outside of Christianity. What some people have done to other people in the name of God or Heaven, or to elevate one faith above another, is a very sad part of human history.

In order to answer your original question about murder, I took examples which are actually examples of events stretching over centuries according to world history classes and Shakespeare. Even the fourth example of my friend’s son, that of a lovers’ quarrel and revenge, has been seen in every age. When one talks about reasons for something like the Inquisition or Roman Imperialism, one should look both at multiple motives and surrounding circumstances.

Actually, the so-called Inquisition existed in various formats over those centuries so it is very hard to simplify them into a short sentence. I used so-called because at one point – if my poor memory is somewhat accurate – it seems that a PBS documentary commented that the Inquisition, maybe under a different name depending on the country, was responsible for revising Roman legal system or penal code. However, I will not state that as a fact. Yet, I did get the impression that the Inquisition was not a “one size fits all” organized program.

Regarding the comment: “to elevate one faith above another, is a very sad part of human history.” Yes it is – no doubt.

Nonetheless, one must be careful not to look at history with blinders. Yes, sadness, shame, regret is appropriate. But if one looks at the humans involved and the countries and times they lived in, one would find a lot more motives and reasons than the singular one of excessive and unreasonable pride in one’s faith. I definitely would include your reference to “emotional stress or mental illness” as a cause for many evils.

Please, please do not take all this as a justification. Murder, whether it is at a grade school or in Africa or part of human history, is extremely serious. It always was and it will always be. The final judge is the Creator of life.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[LBSDBS]

When it comes to rumors about the Catholic church persecuting scientists and intellectuals, your first clue should be the lack of consistency these rumors have with the real world that surrounds you, namely the vast collections of universities, schools and the like, some dating back to the crusades. That’s in addition to the fact that much of the scientific knowledge that the church supposedly persecuted was knowledge they couldn’t have accomplished many of their most well known achievements of the day without not only believing, but understanding.

The first man to successfully build a flying contraption was a Catholic monk. Landing was a different story though. LOL.

The example I like to use most was Christopher Columbus’s supposed conflict with the church about believing that the world was round and then saved by Queen Isabel I, completely ignoring the fact that along with Ferdinand II, she was a religious radical (basically the Catholic Osama Bin Ladens of their day) and were not known for having the slightest bit of tolerance for Church opposition.

On the contrary, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, for a very long time, the world being round was common knowledge, as far back as 300-400 BC in some places that I know of. Even St. Peter, St. Mathew etc. were probably aware of the fact that the world was round long before they ever even heard of Jesus.

Anyway, if I were you, I would look in to some of the scientific studies and accomplishments the Catholic Church has achieved throughout the ages. There is allot of very impressive stuff starring you in the face.

Once you come to understand the Churches role in science and technology throughout the ages, you will start to get a better understanding who they had issues with some scientists and philosophers.