Earth, Sun and Galileo

  • Thread starter Thread starter HistoryTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HistoryTeacher

Guest
I think it was only in the past couple of decades that the Pope decreed that the Earth revolves around the Sun but I was wondering a little more about the history of this since surely the Vatican was aware of this far earlier. Also, a little bit about the history of the movement to suppress such ideas by the church. A friend of mine feels like the Catholic Church executed many for this belief but I feel that although some regions of catholocism may have (such as with the Inquisition) the vast majority of the Catholic realm and the Pope directly was not involved in any executions over the theory.

Thanks for any insight.

Brandon
 
Galileo had a deep faith. His dughter was a Poor Clare nun. Galileo was ok until he went off the subject of math and astronomy and started speaking about theology and scripture interpretation.
 
40.png
HistoryTeacher:
the Pope decreed that the Earth revolves around the Sun
Click to expand...
Whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth is a matter of physical science and not a matter of faith and morals for which the Pope may make infallible pronouncements.
 
It should be noted that both Galileo and Copernicus had the support of prominent churchmen and the Church throughout most of the lives. Indeed, the Church at the time was a prominent patron of the sciences. This article provides a helpful overview of Galileo.
 
Catholic Answers also has an online tract about Galilieo.According to it, Copernicus was attacked by Protestants for advancing the heliocentric theory. Here’s a quote from it:
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
Click to expand...
Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. **As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements. **(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that Protestants find the Galileo controversy a convenient stick to beat the Catholic Church, but you don’t hear too much about what Protestants of that era believed.
 
When did the Vatican officially announce that the Earth truly does revolve around the Sun ?

BRandon
 
40.png
HistoryTeacher:
When did the Vatican officially announce that the Earth truly does revolve around the Sun ?

BRandon
Click to expand...
Shortly after Isaac Newton came up with the theory of universal gravitation in the late 1600’s the Church reopened the matter since credible new evidence supported heliocentrism. They took Copernicus and Gaelileo off the index of prohibited books and took a neutral position on the matter since definitive proof was still not available. The proof came in 1838 when stellar parallaxes were first observed through a telescope and the church took a definite position.
 
The proof came in 1838 when stellar parallaxes were first observed through a telescope and the church took a definite position.
Click to expand...
The Church does not technically have a “definite position” that the earth reolves around the sun, just as she has no “definite position” that gravity exists, or that diseases are caused by bacteria.

These things are all true, but they are not within the Church’s means to endorse. She can forbid one from holding an unproved scientific principle, but once “proved” the Church merely allows the faithful to believe it, without there being a question of heresy.

I can believe that the earth is flat, that the sun reolves around the earth, and that disease is caused by invisible furry aliens, and still be a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
 
40.png
Grolsch:
Shortly after Isaac Newton came up with the theory of universal gravitation in the late 1600’s the Church reopened the matter since credible new evidence supported heliocentrism. They took Copernicus and Gaelileo off the index of prohibited books and took a neutral position on the matter since definitive proof was still not available. The proof came in 1838 when stellar parallaxes were first observed through a telescope and the church took a definite position.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Newton’s reduction of planetary motion to a poorly constructed terrestial ballistics theory involves a backsliding from pure Copernican heliocentricity to a picture where the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun.

“PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

To make it simple for Catholics to understand without being condescending -

Recognising the Copernican system is more than a fact,it is an experience !.To recognise that there is no such thing as sunrise or sunset but that it is the Earth rotating on its axis is far removed from the Newtonian conception which combines axial rotation and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion.

In other words recognising the Copernican system involves an experience while Newton’s concept is all about logical proof and is ultimately incorrect.
 
It can properly be said that the sun appears to revolve around the earth, just as it can be said that the earth appears to revolve around the sun. What is true is that they both revolve about the moving center of the solar system which is close to the center of the sun, but not coincident with it.

The Church was correct in demanding that Galileo not present his erroneous theory of a stationary sun as a fact. By sentencing him to house arrest, he was able to collect and publish his previous work on dynamics which led Newton to formulate his famous laws of motion. Another inadvertant contribution to science by the Church.
 
Two other ways to think about it.
  1. What does the church care if we revolved around a slice a cheese? I’m a huge astronomy buff, very fascinating. But has almost nothing to do with my faith in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The church is not an authority on physics or other sciences (while it has and does HIGHLY support education including science).
  2. GALILEO was WRONG!! His theory was a step in the right direction but still wrong. His theory was that the whole universe revolved around the sun. It doesn’t!! Something we found out later. So when Galileo demanded that the church make his theory authoritive, they would’ve been in error. He continued to press the theological standings of his theory and that’s when they silenced him.
 
40.png
Skyron:
Two other ways to think about it.
Click to expand...
I agree. It’s time we quit trying to use the bible as a science book and involve ourselves in pointless arguments between religion and science, which are separate spheres of knowledge. (Of course, all truth is one, but science and philosophy–metaphysics–use different methods.)

It is regrettable that some religionists have forgotten how to think scientifically, and even more regrettable that many scientists have lost the ability to think metaphysically. It excludes from their consideration a good deal of reality.
 
I am reminded of the old saying that the Bible is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go.

Gerry 🙂
 
the irony of course is that it was that child of the Reformation, Kepler, who got the equations of planetary motion correct
 
40.png
Skyron:
  1. GALILEO was WRONG!! His theory was a step in the right direction but still wrong. His theory was that the whole universe revolved around the sun. It doesn’t!! Something we found out later. So when Galileo demanded that the church make his theory authoritive, they would’ve been in error. He continued to press the theological standings of his theory and that’s when they silenced him.
Click to expand...
He was also wrong about his theory on the origin of the Earth’s tides, which he attributed to Earth’s motion and excluded the role played by the gravitational attraction of external bodies like the Moon.

Gerry 🙂
 
Steve Andersen:
the irony of course is that it was that child of the Reformation, Kepler, who got the equations of planetary motion correct
Click to expand...
The greater irony was that Kepler was sheltered from the protestants by the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. :whacky:
 
40.png
Grolsch:
The proof came in 1838 when stellar parallaxes were first observed through a telescope and the church took a definite position.
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite for them actually taking a position, or did they just cease any objection?
 
40.png
digitonomy:
Do you have a cite for them actually taking a position, or did they just cease any objection?
Click to expand...
I know I read it somewhere while in university. I forget where exactly. I think Dominvs is correct that the Church doesn’t really take a “position” but that a theory is not contrary to Catholic faith. The Church’s stand on the theory of evolution comes to mind. In the words of JPII, Truth and faith cannot contradict.

It’s late but a quick internet search turned up this page on the Church and geocentrism:

“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. . . . In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”

-John Paul II address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 1992

catholicoutlook.com/geo1.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top