Galileo is a good guy,now!

[That_one_guy]

VATICAN CITY — Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero.

The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim of its Inquisition as a man of faith, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.
ASSOCIATED PRESS This undated file image shows an etching of astronomer Galileo Galilei. The Vatican is rehabilitating its most famous victim of the Inquisition, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.

Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist recently, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and “contemplate with gratitude the Lord’s works.”

from

macon.com/147/story/568136.html

So,the article goes on to say,“Galileo should be named the “patron” of the dialogue between faith and reason.”

Does this mean that Galileo will be canonized?He hasn’t performed any miracles.

What is going on.Is this along the lines of the Church saying that evolution is not in conflict with church doctrine?Is the Church getting a complete makeover???
I’m a little confused.

 

[JReducation]

VATICAN CITY — Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero.

The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim of its Inquisition as a man of faith, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.
ASSOCIATED PRESS This undated file image shows an etching of astronomer Galileo Galilei. The Vatican is rehabilitating its most famous victim of the Inquisition, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.

Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist recently, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and “contemplate with gratitude the Lord’s works.”

from

macon.com/147/story/568136.html

So,the article goes on to say,“Galileo should be named the “patron” of the dialogue between faith and reason.”

Does this mean that Galileo will be canonized?He hasn’t performed any miracles.

What is going on.Is this along the lines of the Church saying that evolution is not in conflict with church doctrine?Is the Church getting a complete makeover???
I’m a little confused.

Benedict XVI had already said that evolution and scripture were not in conflict. The conflict is between the ahteistic proponents of evolution where man and everything in nature is an accident.

Any evolutionary hypothesis that leaves room for a superior power that created the laws of evolution is not in conflict with the faith. The Church continues to protect the singularity of man in the mystery of creation. What she does not hold to is a scientific interpretation of Genersis. Genesis is Salvation History, not science.

Science and Salvation History do not have to be at odds with each other.

As to Galileo, the Church is saying that it was wrong in her condemnation of this theories. There is nothing wrong here. She was wrong. The Earth is not the centre of the universe or even the solar system.

This reminds me of a humorous story that I heard a while ago. I don’t remember what pope it was. But when the first samples of coffee reached Italy the Pope at the time tried it and declared that it was too delicious not to be sinful.

I’m not sure if that pope was jesting or not; but there have been times in history when the Church made statements that it had to retract or clarify. This one is no surprise. It doesn’t change the Church at all.

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

They don’t mean to say that Galileo could be canonized, they’re using the word patron differently here:

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi told Vatican Radio that Galileo “could become for some the ideal patron for a dialogue between science and faith.”

1. One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor: a patron of the arts.

 

[JReducation]

They don’t mean to say that Galileo could be canonized, they’re using the word patron differently here:

I got the same impression. Just as there are patrons of the arts, there are patrons of the sciences.

JR

 

[That_one_guy]

yeah.I just thought it was sort of cool.
All of this shows me that the Church is actually quite progressive.Or,at least, Papa ratzi is.I totally like this Pope.I think a lot of really good changes, or rather, elaborations/expoundings of Church are about to come forth.

 

[JReducation]

yeah.I just thought it was sort of cool.
All of this shows me that the Church is actually quite progressive.Or,at least, Papa ratzi is.I totally like this Pope.I think a lot of really good changes, or rather, elaborations/expoundings of Church are about to come forth.

Why don’t people listen? When Joseph Ratzinger was elected many of my friends, some traditional Catholics and other very liberal Catholics, had all kinds of speculations.

The Traditionalists thought he was going to be the new Thomas Aquinas. Little did they know that he’s more a Bonaventure and Augustine in one package. The liberals thought he was going to stop or forward progress. Little did they know that he’s primarily a scholar and has always been a scholar. EVen when you become pope, you can’t shed your personal history.

I had said, “Watch and you’ll see. I’ve seen his type before.” The young don’t always do what they’re told.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[adrift]

The enemies of the Church have done a good job of propaganda and Galileo.

As to Galileo, the Church is saying that it was wrong in her condemnation of this theories. There is nothing wrong here. She was wrong. The Earth is not the centre of the universe or even the solar system.

The Church never condemned his theories. Copernicus theories were accepted. The problem was that Galileo presented them as fact which they were not at the time and not just as theory. Galileo to his credit obeyed.

 

[That_one_guy]

Why don’t people listen? When Joseph Ratzinger was elected many of my friends, some traditional Catholics and other very liberal Catholics, had all kinds of speculations.

The Traditionalists thought he was going to be the new Thomas Aquinas. Little did they know that he’s more a Bonaventure and Augustine in one package. The liberals thought he was going to stop or forward progress. Little did they know that he’s primarily a scholar and has always been a scholar. EVen when you become pope, you can’t shed your personal history.

I had said, “Watch and you’ll see. I’ve seen his type before.” The young don’t always do what they’re told.

Fraternally,

JR

I like the way he lets us know what certain things mean.I’ve said this on other threads and I will say it here,too.I find it ironically delightful that a notoriously conservative bunch such as us Catholics are about to take the lead in what has traditionally(from a secular point of view) been the causes of neo-pagan hippy types.I’m talking about the environment,specifically.
I also expect we will see a lot more parallels with science and Church teachings come forth and its just a matter of time before our doctrines on immorality become ‘hip’.
All of this in an eschatological context as the Church matures before the parousia.

 

[JReducation]

I like the way he lets us know what certain things mean.I’ve said this on other threads and I will say it here,too.I find it ironically delightful that a notoriously conservative bunch such as us Catholics are about to take the lead in what has traditionally(from a secular point of view) been the causes of neo-pagan hippy types.I’m talking about the environment,specifically.
I also expect we will see a lot more parallels with science and Church teachings come forth and its just a matter of time before our doctrines on immorality become ‘hip’.
All of this in an eschatological context as the Church matures before the parousia.

That’s an interesting perspective. I just hope that I’m already gone by the parousia.

JR

 

[That_one_guy]

The church denounced Galileo’s theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest.

The church has for years been striving to shed its reputation for being hostile to science, in part by producing top-notch research out of its own telescope.

This is from the same link above
macon.com/147/story/568136.html

I wonder where I can see pictures of from this telescope and any other astronomical data and stuff from the Vatican.Maybe they got some wierd x-files type stuff…

 

[JReducation]

The church denounced Galileo’s theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest.

The church has for years been striving to shed its reputation for being hostile to science, in part by producing top-notch research out of its own telescope.

This is from the same link above
macon.com/147/story/568136.html

I wonder where I can see pictures of from this telescope and any other astronomical data and stuff from the Vatican.Maybe they got some wierd x-files type stuff…

You may want to try the Vatican site and use their search engine. They have their own version of Google. I don’t know what they make available to the public. But I do know that they have one of the most sophisticated telescopes and science labs in the world.

www.vatican.va

Fraternally,

JR

 

[RLT]

The Church never condemned his theories. Copernicus theories were accepted. The problem was that Galileo presented them as fact which they were not at the time and not just as theory. Galileo to his credit obeyed.

This fact seems to be ignored.

 

[That_one_guy]

You may want to try the Vatican site and use their search engine. They have their own version of Google. I don’t know what they make available to the public. But I do know that they have one of the most sophisticated telescopes and science labs in the world.

www.vatican.va

Fraternally,

JR

Cool! I’m gonna check it out NOW!!!

Thanks JR!

 

[That_one_guy]

This fact seems to be ignored.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.I wasn’t ignoring it.I simply overlooked the post.Oops!

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.I wasn’t ignoring it.I simply overlooked the post.Oops!

Galileo was also a Secular Franciscan. He had no choice but to obey or suffer dismissal from the Order and possible excommunication. He was a man of faith. He was at odds with the Church on this issue and was taken to task this issue. But he was never accused of being a heretic. It was his publication that was charged, not his faith.

Those who can read Italian can find the summary of the case on the Vatican web site, but it’s only presented in Italian.

JR

 

[That_one_guy]

The enemies of the Church have done a good job of propaganda and Galileo.

The Church never condemned his theories. Copernicus theories were accepted. The problem was that Galileo presented them as fact which they were not at the time and not just as theory. Galileo to his credit obeyed.

from the above link.
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a “tradition.” They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

&&^%$#%^)__((&&^^%$$

actually very interesting stuff.

 

[JReducation]

from the above link.
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a “tradition.” They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

&&^%$#%^)__((&&^^%$$

actually very interesting stuff.

It is fascinating stuff. Copernicus was a man of great faith. One thing that he said was that the simplicity of our solar system was consistent with the simplicity of God. Therefore, it was very logical that God would create it this way. I always like this statement. He is saying that the universe reflects its Creator.

JR

 

[Sir_Anthony]

well, I have read awhile back that it was not necessary the theory that got Galileo in trouble, but it’s just that he rubbed the pope and the curia in the wrong way, and well the pope got ticked at him and well an angry pope took it a little personal.

by the way, just for some food for thought, how do we know that the earth isn’t the centre of the universe? I just say this because tell me what is the center of the universe, if you think the universe in three dimensional terms that extend infinitely, therefore there would be no true center, but you can call earth an arbitrary center of the universe as a reference point for us, even if the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[That_one_guy]

well, I have read awhile back that it was not necessary the theory that got Galileo in trouble, but it’s just that he rubbed the pope and the curia in the wrong way, and well the pope got ticked at him and well an angry pope took it a little personal.

by the way, just for some food for thought, how do we know that the earth isn’t the centre of the universe? I just say this because tell me what is the center of the universe, if you think the universe in three dimensional terms that extend infinitely, therefore there would be no true center, but you can call earth an arbitrary center of the universe as a reference point for us, even if the earth revolves around the sun.

That’s interesting.But,I have a tendency to see it more as a series of spirals. Sort of the way the Picts drew their spiral motifs.
However, since the universe is so vast, it would be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint the center.
Spirals begetting spirals seems likely.There are a few galaxies which appear to not be spiral.But, that could be an optical effect from the angle or distance,no?

 

[JReducation]

well, I have read awhile back that it was not necessary the theory that got Galileo in trouble, but it’s just that he rubbed the pope and the curia in the wrong way, and well the pope got ticked at him and well an angry pope took it a little personal.

by the way, just for some food for thought, how do we know that the earth isn’t the centre of the universe? I just say this because tell me what is the center of the universe, if you think the universe in three dimensional terms that extend infinitely, therefore there would be no true center, but you can call earth an arbitrary center of the universe as a reference point for us, even if the earth revolves around the sun.

The old Christian concept of the Earth was based on the Genesis account, which was based on Judeo cosmology.

JR