Galileo kicked the Eucharist?

[IsaacSheen]

(Again from two of my professors). This is very summed up.

The council of Trent was to decide if the Chruch should apply Aristotle to the Catholic faith. When they decided to…they were betting that Aristotle was right.

Galileo came along and proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Because Aristotle had stated differently, Aristotle was wrong and thus…

Because the Church used Aristotle to explain what happens during trans-substantiation, the Eucharist is false.

This is why the Church had Galileo “dealt with” as well as many other scientists (a.k.a. heretics).

Anyone care to share their comments and views?

 

[Bobby_Jim]

I don’t think Galileo ever proved the Earth went around the sun. He didn’t come up with the idea. Kepler did more to show that hypothesis could be reconciled with measurements available at the time by proposing elliptical orbits and his laws of planetary motion. As time went on, other types of evidence began to mount that tipped the scales in favor of the heliocentric model.

More to your professor’s point, I think this is all wrong… Aristotle doesn’t teach on the Eucharist. More precisely I think Aquinas and others used terms and logic that are in line with the way Aristotle thought, in describing the Eucharist. They didn’t mean to set up Aristotle as an infallible teacher on issues of faith and morals. But they had great respect for his way of thinking.

Galileo, meanwhile… I think his problem was one of obedience, and overstepping his bounds.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, between this thread and your one about the “sheepskin” and the “Lamb of God”. . .

Your profs are once again using the “ex hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy.

Your best bet is to ask them to back up their assertions with written documentary proof. Check that proof. Then check any written documentary proofs for the other side of the question, (There are plenty of books, plenty of Catholic web sites like CA and EWTN which have information you can use), and then make your decision.

God help higher education.

 

[IsaacSheen]

Thank you for the great responses!

 

[Kurt_G]

And just one more on Galileo…

Just so we all can appreciate that the arguments against heliocentrism were not just religion based. Some good ones were scientifically based.

According to Matthew Arnold’s tape “Fire and Sword”,
the heliocentrist theory, which Galileo had adopted, was not a slam dumk to reconcile even among genuine scientists of the day.

Point#1: A major scientific dispute of the theory was that, if the earth was moving such a distance around the sun, we should see seasonal positional changes among the background of stars. Stars did not change in position, relative to one another, so the theory had one mark against it.

Of course, what no one, not even Galileo, knew at that time were the immense distances which separate the stars from earth. According to Arnold, Galileo had no real scientific answer for this scientific dilemma.

Point#2: According to Arnold, Galileo did not stop with saying the earth revolved around the sun. His theory suggested that the sun was the center of the universe.
So then, there was at the time no totally correct theory offered, since even Galileo was still in error, just less in error than geocentrism.

Isn’t all this historical stuff neat to look back on and dig into? If I could make a living doing what Matthew Arnold does, I’d jump all over it!

God Bless Us All!

 

[JimG]

Aquinas used Aristotle’s metaphysics (philosophy) as a way of thinking about the Eucharist and other philosophical matters. Aristotle’s science, was of course, primitive by modern standards. But Aristotelian philosophy is still the groundwork for philosophers such as Mortimer Adler, and anyone in the Thomistic tradition.

 

[Cubsfan]

A historical response to all of this is that at the time of Galileo the Protestant Reformation was raging. Protestants were so adamant that the bible be followed literally that if the Church had made a bold statement in support of Gallileo’s theories, the protestants would have used this as ammunition against the church (the church being anti-biblical). The Pope at the time (his name escapes me) only wanted Gallileo to keep a low profile.

The misrepresentation of this whole episode is similar to the black legend that protestants have used to attack the church since they have come onto the scene.

 

[JesseJr]

**What is all this scurrilous talk about “kicking the Eucharist”?

What part can any man have in deciding whether or not the Eucharist is or is not real? Jesus said it 5 times in John Chapter 6. Those are the only facts we need.

 Who are we to believe, mere men, the likes of Aristotle, Plato and others or the very Words of God, who is Jesus Christ?

Who cares if the earth revolves around the sun or if this solar system revolves around a galaxy? Those facts have no relevance to our eternal salvation. Jesus Christ and His REAL Presence in the validly consecrated Eucharist have eternal significance to our salvation.

 Let one with pride boast of his philosophical endurance and ideology...let the man who seeks Eternal Wisdom seek the Everlasting God in His Eucharist.

Jesse Jr.**

 

[1ke]

(Again from two of my professors). This is very summed up.

The council of Trent was to decide if the Chruch should apply Aristotle to the Catholic faith. When they decided to…they were betting that Aristotle was right.

Galileo came along and proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Because Aristotle had stated differently, Aristotle was wrong and thus…

Because the Church used Aristotle to explain what happens during trans-substantiation, the Eucharist is false.

This is why the Church had Galileo “dealt with” as well as many other scientists (a.k.a. heretics).

Anyone care to share their comments and views?

Your professor is a nut case. I can only pray that this is NOT a Catholic institution. If it is, run…! Find a different college that teaches Truth and not this crazy fluff.