Galileo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Semper_Zelare

Guest
So, I’m not a historian or anything, but I want to know how to respond conversationally to the statement that goes like this: “The Church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vis versa. And they apologized for it in 1992. I guess the Church realized it could no longer deny the truth” … etc, etc

To my knowledge, this particular apology of John Paul II seemed to gain the most attention in the media bc they could make a case of the Church’s hypocrisy. So, is the apology of (St.) Pope John Paul II fallacious? Or is it infallible because it is a statement on Church doctrine?

Was the Church right in its actions to force Galileo to recant his teaching on the heliocentric universe?
Was the Inquisition wrong in its actions or was John Paul II wrong in his apology? Or, were they both right, and if so, how?

It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.

…
P.S.
If the Church feels that new scientific facts will lead many people away from Jesus Christ who is the truth, then is proclaiming those scientific facts morally wrong (thus in those times punishable by the Inquisition).?
 
alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Condemnation_of_Galileo.mp3

The above link is to a talk by Dr. John Rao in the 1980’s. Though he was a somewhat sarcastic speaker, he wrapped the matter up perfectly. I am rather tired at the moment, and I have no interest in explaining this, but Dr. Rao does it well. He shows that the somewhat arrogant behaviour of Galileo influenced the course of events significantly. It was more about his hubris than the “evil Roman church”! 😃

If that link doesn’t work, just go here: alabamacatholicresources.com/dr_john_rao.html and find “The Condemnation of Galileo” to listen to it. It’s a good starter!
 
Semper, don’t you know the Galileo case is the biggest can of worms to be found inside the Church? This means you haven’t a chance of ever finding out the truth of the matter unless you know how to think like a catholic and research the case like a detective trying to solve a murder. I am 20 years researching the matter and have only just figured it all out. Trouble is, even the truth is not wanted within the Church of today.

I read the site recommended by David and listened to the audio tape recommended by Glorious and they are but two more versions of the Galileo affair as promulgated for 250 years in countless books, articles, lectures, plays, TV, the Internet and a papal study commission on the subject. In conclusion they are versions of history that both in the Church and State agree on, and as far as all are concerned that is the end of the matter. Their 270-year-old account gives credibility to centuries of ridicule and scorn poured on the Church by its enemies and even by its own throughout the centuries. It asserts that the anti-Copernican decree defining and declaring formal heresy was inextricably interwoven with and dependent on an ignorant belief put together from a literal reading of Scripture, a ‘mistake’ alluded to in a papal encyclical and condemned in the documents of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church (Vatican II). Truly, if ever anyone was found guilty and subjected to derision by both the enemies of the Church and those who inherited its leadership and authority, it was the ‘men and organisms’ of the Church of the 17th century who defended the traditional geocentric reading of the Holy Scriptures and who condemned Galileo accordingly.
Objective scholars however, intent on trying to come to terms with what they conclude to be a disastrous episode in Church history, even if it is the only one of its kind, admit ‘the wish to solve the riddle plays against the consciousness that it may be insoluble.’ The reason for this is of course because the teaching of the Church precludes such a happening as the Galileo affair in which a Church decree defining and declaring formal heresy can be demonstrably wrong. The Holy Ghost, we are ever assured, in matters of defining faith and morals - and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is of faith - assists the Pope, the Church, in its government. Such is the true nature of the ‘riddle’ and is the reason why so many scholars, in spite of their close examination of the case, know in their heart that they have failed to resolve things to their ultimate satisfaction. And that is the reason why there are many different versions of the Galileo case, those written by people who wished to see the Church discredited and undermined as a divine institution, and those presented by Catholics who, in their belief that Galileo was proven right after all, rewrite and revise history retrospectively in a desperate attempt to try to minimise the damage they perceive was done to the credibility of the Catholic Church. We see then both sides had good reason to distort the facts and different accounts of the case are a result of this, but more so by those composed over the centuries by the Catholic apologists, all trying hard of course to expurgate the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined and declared by papal decree the proposition of a fixed sun as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly. Such pathetic delusion and denial desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.
 
We see then both sides had good reason to distort the facts and different accounts of the case are a result of this, but more so by those composed over the centuries by the Catholic apologists, all trying hard of course to expurgate the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined and declared by papal decree the proposition of a fixed sun as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly. Such pathetic delusion and denial desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.
So, you’re going to ultimately come down on the side of the Protestants then. I would question you as to why you’re still Catholic… but that would probably derail the thread. Instead, I’ll just tell you that if indeed you think the Catholic Church issues erroneous decrees on faith and morals… then it is certain you don’t believe the Church is immune from evil as Jesus promised in [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB].

In general, delving into Church history is often a “can of worms”. I find that this is because the Catholic Church actually has a history. Any denomination (other than perhaps the Orthodox) must, MUST be able to prove the illegitimacy of the Church. However, they can distort whatever history they like… at the end of the day there is always a gray area that exists like this:
So, Jesus Christ preached… people were saved for like 200 years (early Church), but from the absolute dominance of the Catholic Church until the 1500s we’re to believe that no believer was correct and that not until the emergence of [Insert Protestant Denomination] were Christians again in line with what Christ taught.

Its as clear as day that that kind of history only exists because of Protestants SCRAMBLING for historical legitimacy… and they don’t talk about it a lot, because it doesn’t hold up. They’d rather spend all day thinking of ways to attack the history of the Catholic Church than try to create their own continuous line to Christ… which doesn’t exist.

So, I still want someone on here to give me a response to Galileo. I want to know how to prove that the Galileo affair does not prove the illegitimacy of the Church. Its really no different an attack from: Crusades/ Inquisition/ Indulgences/ Sex Abuse… all of which fail to prove the illegitimacy of the Church.
 
It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.

The Galileo Affair
by George Sims Johnston

John Paul II and Galileo

Pope John Paul II in 1979 expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the celebrated case. A commission of scholars was convened, and they presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992. Contrary to reports in The New York Times and other conduits of misinformation about the Church, the Holy See was not on this occasion finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around the sun. That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo

What John Paul II wanted was a better understanding of the whole affair by both scientists and theologians. It has been said that while politicians think in terms of weeks and statesmen in years, the Pope thinks in centuries. The Holy Father was trying to heal the tragic split between faith and science which occurred in the 17th century and from which Western culture has not recovered. Following the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council, he wished to make clear that science has a legitimate freedom in its own sphere and that this freedom was unduly violated by Church authorities in the case of Galileo.

But at the same time–and here the secular media tuned out–the Holy Father pointed out that “the Galileo case has been a sort of ‘myth,’ in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from the reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church’s supposed rejection of scientific progress.” Galileo’s run-in with the Church, according to the Pope, involved a “tragic mutual incomprehension” in which both sides were at fault. It was a conflict that ought never to have occurred, because faith and science, properly understood, can never be at odds.

Since the Galileo case is one of the historical bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church–the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition–it is important that Catholics understand exactly what happened between the Church and that very great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.

The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and concluded that “the Church had the best of it.” The most striking point about the whole affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics.

…Relation of Facts here…

**Unjust Condemnation

Galileo’s condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo’s works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis.

The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and others have argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern science possible in the first place. In Jaki’s vivid phrase, science was “still-born” in every major culture–Greek, Hindu, Chinese–except the Christian West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that the universe had a beginning in time–an idea which would have scandalized both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist, but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the closer we come to the ontological mysteries of Christian faith.**

Full discussion here.
,
 
Accordingly, this book merited good reviews: Seven Lies About the Catholic Church by Diane Moczar. It covers the following lies, including the subject of your interest.
  1. The Dark Ages
  2. The Catholic Church, Enemy of Progress
  3. A Crusade against the Truth
  4. The Sinister Inquisition
    5. Science on Trial: the Catholic Church vs. Galileo
  5. A Church Corrupted to the Core
  6. A Black and Expedient Legend.
https://www.tanbooks.com/images/2332/2332_175.jpg
,
 
So, I’m not a historian or anything, but I want to know how to respond conversationally to the statement that goes like this: “The Church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vis versa. And they apologized for it in 1992. I guess the Church realized it could no longer deny the truth” … etc, etc

To my knowledge, this particular apology of John Paul II seemed to gain the most attention in the media bc they could make a case of the Church’s hypocrisy. So, is the apology of (St.) Pope John Paul II fallacious? Or is it infallible because it is a statement on Church doctrine?
The apology is neither fallacious nor infallbile.
 
Was the Church right in its actions to force Galileo to recant his teaching on the heliocentric universe?
No.
Was the Inquisition wrong in its actions or was John Paul II wrong in his apology? Or, were they both right, and if so, how?
John Paul II was not wrong. I don’t know that the Inquisition had anything to do with Galileo.
It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.
The fact that the Church makes mistakes does not mean the Church has no authority.
…
If the Church feels that new scientific facts will lead many people away from Jesus Christ who is the truth, then is proclaiming those scientific facts morally wrong (thus in those times punishable by the Inquisition).?
No
 
So, you’re going to ultimately come down on the side of the Protestants then. I would question you as to why you’re still Catholic… but that would probably derail the thread. Instead, I’ll just tell you that if indeed you think the Catholic Church issues erroneous decrees on faith and morals… then it is certain you don’t believe the Church is immune from evil as Jesus promised.

So, I still want someone on here to give me a response to Galileo. I want to know how to prove that the Galileo affair does not prove the illegitimacy of the Church. .
Semper, if you really want someone to give you a response to Galileo, first learn the lesson I posted above, and learn to read it properly. Here is some of it again:

Originally Posted by cassini
[When churchmen collapsed into Copernicanism from 1741] We see then both sides those Copernicans within the Church and those Copernicans attacking the Catholic Church] had good reason to distort the facts and different accounts of the case are a result of this, but more so by those composed over the centuries by the Catholic apologists Copernicans], all trying hard of course to expurgate to purge out or render pure; to purify from anything supposed to be offensive, noxious or erroneous] the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined and declared by papal decree the proposition of a fixed sun as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly. Such pathetic delusion and denial of the Copernicans] desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.

I merely record the history of the Galileo case above, so why do you question my Catholicity? As yet I have not even declared my position. Before I bother to do that any more it it crucial to any Catholic like yourself trying to understand the Galileo case IN A CATHOLIC WAY, as you surely do Semper, it is necessary to know that you will never find the truth in any Copernican account offered to you in post after post on this thread.

Your Catholicity is perfect Semper, you have the fundamental dogma correct entering this debate, And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But the Galileo case will test your faith like nothing before. Incarnations, virgin births, ressurection from the dead, changing water into wine, calming the storm with His Will, ascentions into heaven, turning bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ are kids stuff to what you are asked to believe as a result of the Galileo case. Oh how often I have seen ‘devout Catholics’ who accept all these beliefs run a mile when asked to believe what Peter defined in 1616 and 1633, that is a Catholic belief too far.

So Semper, first correct your reading of my first post and if you wish to go on with your search let me know. But beware, for it may turn out that you too will have to set Peter upon Peter to defend what you believe in.
 
The fact that the Church makes mistakes does not mean the Church has no authority.
See what I mean Semper, contradictions like this as a result of the Galileo case is a perfect example of EXPURGATION.
Imagine trying to convert someone by way of telling them that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost but that it can make mistakes. God help us all
 
See what I mean Semper, contradictions like this as a result of the Galileo case is a perfect example of EXPURGATION.
Imagine trying to convert someone by way of telling them that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost but that it can make mistakes. God help us all
This example is invalid because the statement you quoted in this response is not accurate. The contraction is in one poster that isn’t indicative the the truth.
 
Cassini’s peculiar take on infallibility aside (“The Holy Ghost, we are ever assured, in matters of defining faith and morals - and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is of faith - assists the Pope, the Church, in its government.” - “Imagine trying to convert someone by way of telling them that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost but that it can make mistakes”), the Galileo issue is not what detractors of the Church want it to be or make it out to be.

Big picture(little detail):
  • Geocentricity wasn’t just what the Church believed - it was the accepted understanding of the universe (not just our solar system) of the day; the Protestants certainly held to it!
  • Copernicus had dedicated his work on heliocentrism to Pope Paul III, so the Church knew that body of thought existed, even if it was in the minority.
  • Galileo decided his work needed no peer review, in spite of the Church telling him otherwise. Remember, he claimed the sun was the center of the universe, not just our solar system.
  • So he decided to publish his theory as truth without the peer review.
Thomas Woods’ How the Catholic Church Built Civilization has a good chapter on this.

I’m eager to see Cassini’s posting as to what was delcared in 1616 and 1633 that is so damaging to the Church.
 
=Semper Zelare;7497566]So, I’m not a historian or anything, but I want to know how to respond conversationally to the statement that goes like this: “The Church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vis versa. And they apologized for it in 1992. I guess the Church realized it could no longer deny the truth” … etc, etc
THe Church has never retracted the sentence against Galileo.In the 1992 speech Pope John Paul never said that the Church was wrong.
To my knowledge, this particular apology of John Paul II seemed to gain the most attention in the media bc they could make a case of the Church’s hypocrisy. So, is the apology of (St.) Pope John Paul II fallacious? Or is it infallible because it is a statement on Church doctrine?
THere was no formal disavowal by Pope John Paul of the decisions made by Cardinal Bellarmine, Paul V and Urban VIII.
If you want an in-depth account of the Galileo affair I suggest you read the book Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right.
Was the Church right in its actions to force Galileo to recant his teaching on the heliocentric universe?
Before he died Galileo did recant his teaching and it was not by force.
Was the Inquisition wrong in its actions or was John Paul II wrong in his apology? Or, were they both right, and if so, how?
Nowhere in his speech does Pope John Paul apologize for the decision against Galileo.His speech is full of ambiguous language.No authorative bull or encyclical was ever issued.THe speech was given before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which includes about 100 members. They are not all Catholic. THe Academy includes all religions including atheists. THe speech was a disappointment.One of the reporters, Erman McMullin covering the speech stated “the final report to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the speech…were plainly inadequate…there has admittedly been disappointment, grave disappointment indeed.”
It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.
…
How do we know the Church was wrong? Heliocentricism is an unproven theory. There are a number of scientics that believe in Geocentrism.
P.S
If the Church feels that new scientific facts will lead many people away from Jesus Christ who is the truth, then is proclaiming those scientific facts morally wrong (thus in those times punishable by the Inquisition).?
No scientific experiment has ever been able to prove that the earth moves and revolves around the sun.In fact the failure to prove that theory is what prompted Einstein to develop his theory of relativity.Einstein said" I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
 
So, I’m not a historian or anything, but I want to know how to respond conversationally to the statement that goes like this: “The Church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vis versa. And they apologized for it in 1992. I guess the Church realized it could no longer deny the truth” … etc, etc

To my knowledge, this particular apology of John Paul II seemed to gain the most attention in the media bc they could make a case of the Church’s hypocrisy. So, is the apology of (St.) Pope John Paul II fallacious? Or is it infallible because it is a statement on Church doctrine?

Was the Church right in its actions to force Galileo to recant his teaching on the heliocentric universe?
Was the Inquisition wrong in its actions or was John Paul II wrong in his apology? Or, were they both right, and if so, how?

It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.

…
P.S.
If the Church feels that new scientific facts will lead many people away from Jesus Christ who is the truth, then is proclaiming those scientific facts morally wrong (thus in those times punishable by the Inquisition).?
Galileo was rebuked more for his refusal to teach his science as a Theory than the Science itself.
 
So, I’m not a historian or anything, but I want to know how to respond conversationally to the statement that goes like this: “The Church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vis versa. And they apologized for it in 1992. I guess the Church realized it could no longer deny the truth” … etc, etc

To my knowledge, this particular apology of John Paul II seemed to gain the most attention in the media bc they could make a case of the Church’s hypocrisy. So, is the apology of (St.) Pope John Paul II fallacious? Or is it infallible because it is a statement on Church doctrine?

Was the Church right in its actions to force Galileo to recant his teaching on the heliocentric universe?
Was the Inquisition wrong in its actions or was John Paul II wrong in his apology? Or, were they both right, and if so, how?

It takes very little effort to say “It was wrong what the Church did to Galileo, and even they admit their wrong… so BOOM the Church clearly has no authority”. How can I respond in a simple and straightforward way refuting that.

…
P.S.
If the Church feels that new scientific facts will lead many people away from Jesus Christ who is the truth, then is proclaiming those scientific facts morally wrong (thus in those times punishable by the Inquisition).?
Before this thread gets closed, one needs to first understand the difference between individuals who make judgments and decrees (such as those involved in the local Galileo case) and what is an actual dogma/doctrine of the Catholic Church.

One also has to be astute regarding the vocabulary of geocentrists.

The question of infallibility is not the issue because there never was any Catholic dogma specifically stating that an individual material/physical object commonly known as a planet (though some deny that term) moved or did not move in a definite way.

Morality is not based on science real or speculative.

No matter how many high ranking Catholic individuals use the four-letter word heresy, there was no new dogma declared during the local events surrounding Galileo because an Official Church Council was not in session at that time.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse individual’s personal actions with the formal operations of the visible Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has never lost his authority in issues of faith and morals. The media has difficulty distinguishing between opinion and speculations regarding the material/ physical world and the actual Catholic Deposit of Faith.

To understand how the Catholic Church operates, check out the posts of DavidPalm.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
This example is invalid because the statement you quoted in this response is not accurate. The contraction is in one poster that isn’t indicative the the truth.
Do not quite follow you Davidv, could you please spell out your point in language this guy can understand, thanks.
 
Before this thread gets closed, one needs to first understand the difference between individuals who make judgments and decrees (such as those involved in the local Galileo case) and what is an actual dogma/doctrine of the Catholic Church.

One also has to be astute regarding the vocabulary of geocentrists.

The question of infallibility is not the issue because there never was any Catholic dogma specifically stating that an individual material/physical object commonly known as a planet (though some deny that term) moved or did not move in a definite way.

Morality is not based on science real or speculative.

No matter how many high ranking Catholic individuals use the four-letter word heresy, there was no new dogma declared during the local events surrounding Galileo because an Official Church Council was not in session at that time.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse individual’s personal actions with the formal operations of the visible Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has never lost his authority in issues of faith and morals. The media has difficulty distinguishing between opinion and speculations regarding the material/ physical world and the actual Catholic Deposit of Faith.

To understand how the Catholic Church operates, check out the posts of DavidPalm.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
**‘Before this thread gets closed…’ ??? **
 
So, you’re going to ultimately come down on the side of the Protestants then. I would question you as to why you’re still Catholic… but that would probably derail the thread. Instead, I’ll just tell you that if indeed you think the Catholic Church issues erroneous decrees on faith and morals… then it is certain you don’t believe the Church is immune from evil as Jesus promised in [bibledrb]Matthew 16:18[/bibledrb].
Please be careful of the word “decrees”. What decree has been issued? Who issued it and when? If one is going to talk about “decrees” on faith and morals, then one better have the document in hand.

My apology Semper Zelare for being nit-picking about the word “decree”. Decrees are everywhere and can be used in all kinds of cases. But that does not mean that a decree is always spot on.

Decrees do not substitute for properly defined Church dogma.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top