Actually the Church never declared the earth was the center of the universe. It was a COMMON belief that it was the center of the universe but it was never declared by any Church Council or Papal statement of Ex-Cathedra.
It’s false, there was never such a dogma.
Then why did they put Galileo under house arrest for it? And admit they were wrong only in the 20th century…
What occured was Copernicus was a low level cleric. His theory was fully accepted by the Pope as a theory. During this time the Church actively pursued science. In fact Churches were used to study the universe prior to telescopes becoming more advanced. (They would track sunlight etc through the dome of the Church.) The Pope warmly welcomed Galileo to meet with him. They became friends and the Pope supported him. Galileo urged the Pope to pronounce his theory to be law and change the wording of the Bible. The Pope refused. Their friendship became strained as Galileo continued to push the issue. Galileo published a play about the subject. One of the lead characters was called Simplico. Simplico rejected Galileo’s theory in the play. Many thought that he was accusing the Pope of being a simpleton. In this era it was a common method to attack a person of note. The Pope became angry with Galelio and put him in the care of the Medici family. The Medici family was one of the richest and most powerful families at the time. Him being with the Medici’s was certainly not a hardship. Galileo could continue his work in other areas. He in fact published several more theories before his death. It should be noted that Galileo’s theory was proven wrong by Kepler within his own lifetime. The Pope never rejected heliocentrism. (He rejected stating that it should be a law and the Bible should be changed to fit this theory.) In fact it was embraced when Copernicus and Kepler published their versions. It was also embraced when Galileo first published his version of it. It was Galileo’s attacks against the Pope and his desire to change the Bible that caused the problem. It should be noted that two of Galileo’s daughters became nuns. One left with a mental inllness. The other remained a nun her whole life.
It has been a pleasure for me to read the Italian letter and the Latin paper you sent me. I thank you for both the one and the other, and I may tell you that I found them replete with skill and learning. As you ask for my opinion, I will give it as briefly as possible because, at the moment I have very little time for writing.
First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith **by contradicting the Scriptures**….
Second, I say that, as you know, **the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.** Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the *Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless.* Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….
Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the hold Fathers…This letter does show that many scholars and theologians still did not believe in Copernicus’ theory. At the time it was just a theory. It wasn’t until Kepler that the theory was truly proved to be correct. That being Kepler’s not Galileo’s. Galileo’s theory was to be in error. In fact Kepler proved his theory via a Church with Priests assistance.
They believed him to be wrong but it was not a formal church teaching. Dogma is based on faith and morals, not science, there is no church document in which pope infallibly declares that the earth is the centre of the universe.
Yes…it did. That was the biggest threat posed by Science – it directly challenged Medieval European Man’s erroneous belief in geo-centrism. Prior to the scientific version – heliocentrism – the Church subscribed to and taught Ptolemaic Theory, e.g., a three-tiered existence (Heaven above, the flat Earth in the middle, and Hell just belong the surface of the Earth). Once heliocentrism was established, the Church reached back in time for Neo-Platonic Greek philosophy, via the work of Aristotle, and plugged the Christian story into it, as a conceptual framework, to defend Christianity from the onslaught of Science. It worked. It’s called Scholasticism, and produced Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the Schoolmen.
IIRC, they arrested him not because of what he taught but because he promised that he wouldn’t teach and he did anyway
I can’t tell if you’re kidding or serious. I deeply hope this post is intended as a joke. For one thing, heliocentrism - which teaches that the sun is the center of the universe - is no more correct than geocentrism; thus, it was never “established.”Yes…it did. That was the biggest threat posed by Science – it directly challenged Medieval European Man’s erroneous belief in geo-centrism. Prior to the scientific version – heliocentrism – the Church subscribed to and taught Ptolemaic Theory, e.g., a three-tiered existence (Heaven above, the flat Earth in the middle, and Hell just belong the surface of the Earth). Once heliocentrism was established, the Church reached back in time for Neo-Platonic Greek philosophy, via the work of Aristotle, and plugged the Christian story into it, as a conceptual framework, to defend Christianity from the onslaught of Science. It worked. It’s called Scholasticism, and produced Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the Schoolmen.
How is it that that is connected with dogma?
I agree that people attempt to portray the Church as anti-science in order to discredit Catholics (and all Christians), but I think we should be careful not to incorrectly identify what “faith without reason” or “reason without faith” results in. As I do not consider atheism even remotely rational, I would not say that atheism is the result of reason without faith.