C
cassini
Guest
Granny, why not call yourself Pope grannymyth from now on, after all you seem to know more than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and pope Urban VIII.
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
Hildegaard, I know not of one scholar on Galileo, and there have been THOUSANDS, who interprets this letter as an official recanting. Galileo remember, was warned never again, under threat of being tried again as a heretic, to air the heresy. Galileo wrote a similar thing coming out of the mouth of Simplico in his book Dialogo but it was sarcasm that time. I suspect he wrote the above to fool the Churchmen it is addressed to.
Here is Stillman Drake himself and he has a different view of things, one I comment on.
‘Galileo felt crushed by the verdict of “vehement suspicion of heresy” because it cut him off from the Church he loved; because he knew that no heresy had crossed his mind; because the verdict was a second error by an institution to which men looked for truth, and because his own life work stood condemned. He was not disheartened because he considered the Copernican astronomy or anything in science as he saw it, to be absolutely and completely true. This is evident from a letter he dictated to a friend in 1641, the last year of his life, with no hope of reward or any fear of further punishment.
Galileo’s own conscience was clear both as a Catholic and as a scientist. On one occasion he wrote, almost in despair, that at times he felt like burning all his work in science; but never as much as thought of turning his back on his faith…
The cause for which Galileo suffered in his own view, was clearly not Copernicanism but sound theology and Christian zeal… What grieved Galileo was the theologians’ error of 1616, as an indirect result of which he had been punished. Their error was in his eyes a misapplication of law established by the ancient Fathers who had wisely separated science from religion.’ – S. Drake: Galileo, Past Masters, p.91.
Such pious nonsense can only belong to the legend of Galileo. Other dissidents throughout history, I’m sure, also had a clear conscience, for that’s the way unmoved heretics are. Here Drake portrays Galileo - who never had a shred of empirical evidence to confirm his ‘truth’ in his life, clinging to the condemned heresy he swore to God he had abandoned - as a Catholic who loved his Church. What kind of contradiction is that? Countless historians and authors, many intelligent and learned, have rushed in to defend this preposterous illusion. It is enough that the world should have to suffer Galileo and his opinions without the likes of this compounding such ignorance for our generation. Exactly what constitutes a Catholic in the eyes of the Copernicans would be hard to define. But more than that, for you see the 1616 decree of the Church stood firm and unchanged well past the day Galileo died in 1642, and it required internal as well as external rejection of the heliocentric heresy in order to be free from ipso facto excommunication from the Catholic Church. Consider then Drake’s conviction that Galileo believed in the ‘absolute truth’ of Copernicanism, to the day he died. If this is true, then here is Drake inferring that Galileo was not only a liar and perjurer, but indeed remained a heretic ipso facto excommunicated even unto death. Yet, like others of his ilk, he tries to portray him as a faithful and maligned Catholic. Here the contention that he lied at his trial is surely confirmed and that the Church’s judgement that he was guilty of suspicion of heresy was just and legal, and that the critics in history never had a leg to stand on.
So it is that throughout the years we find men walking hand in hand with Galileo, supporting him in every act of betrayal against God and mankind, and all the time trying to make a martyr out of him. ‘Galileo’s conscience’, if he had one, should have been informed, and God knows few men that ever lived were instructed better or given more chances. Read his abjuration again and consider him as Drake and many others, including the 1989-1992 papal commission - endorced by Pope John Paul II mind you - portray him, and you will find instead a hypocrite, a coward and a liar beyond comparison in history.
C
cassini
Guest
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote:
"I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present. "
This proposal of metaphor however, does not hold out against other passages as Bellarmine pointed out. Consider if we will the following texts:
“And Ezachias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day? And Isais said to him…Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines or that it go back so many degrees? And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines, and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaias the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz”. — (IV Kings 20:8-11).
“Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backwards. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down”. — (Isaias 38:8)
“Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still… Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.” — (Josue 10:12-13).
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again…Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” — (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7, 10).
“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….
He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.” —(Ps. 18:1, 6-7).
C
cassini
Guest
It depend which pope was in the room with you. ALL popes throughout history up to 1835 would have told you it contradicted the Bible and was heresy. Once the popes were led to believe it was proven that the 1616 decree was defined and declared in error I have no idea what they would have told you. If they said yes, they would be telling you a Catholic falsehood.
H
hecd2
Guest
One of the most interesting things in that quote is hidden by the bit that Sungenis chose to leave out and represented by an ellipsis. By the way, Sungenis does not use Stilman’s translation but uses one by Fr Brian Harrison. Let me restore some of the letter not included in Sungenis’s book:
“…And just as I deem inadequate the Copernican observations and conjectures, so I judge equally, and more, fallacious and erroneous those of Ptolemy, Aristotle and their followers, when without going beyond the bounds of human reasoning their inconclusiveness can be very easily discovered” Stillman Drake, Galileo at Work, Courier Dover Publications, p 417 (2003)
He then goes on to robustly refute the argument for geocentrism that was bothering his correspondent Rinnucini.
As Stillman Drake comments: “there was nothing hypocritical in Galileo’s saying that all science, including astronomy, is a fiction to the extent that it lies beyond the range of practicable observations; indeed astronomy as Copernicus left it could not be reconciled with many actually observed facts known to Galileo. More important yet is Galileo’s flat statement that the traditional geocentric astronomywas even more erroneous than the heliocentric. Thanks to Galileo’s own ttelescopic dioscoveries that was certainly true…” ibid, p 418.
What a peculiar “recantation”.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
You haven’t made the slightest impression on anyone with your absurd “scientific” arguments for geocentrism.
Your opinion that the entire Catholic Church, the last several popes and almost every Catholic alive is either a heretic or duped (everyone apart from you that is) has failed to influence anyone to your cause.
And personally insulting those who disagree with your fringe interpretations isn’t going to win any converts either. Seems to me somewhat ironic that you, of all people, should attempt to ridicule someone by claiming that they speak as if they know more than the teaching authority of the Church.
Alec
C
cassini
Guest
Hecd, speak for yourself not for others. I have never proposed any arguments for geocentricism, I have made it perfectly clear there are no scientific proofs for G or H. What I do is show you Copernicans your arguments for H are not valid.
I base my judgement on the development of doctrine within the Church. Once a doctrine is defined and declared all contrary opinions are heresy. You cannot reverse heresies in the Church once they have been defined and declared so. Copernicans on the other hand do reverse the true order and thus what I say is the truth and all the pious rantings aimed at me do not change that.
Again I ask you, what do you mean when you say " the teaching authority of the Church"?
Give me any official decree of the Church that you place your heretical Copernicanism on?
You cannot. You are just one of a consensus that all say the same thing and think that consensus runs the Church and its teachings. Well consensus is Protestantism, not Catholicism. The Church has its laws and decides things officially not by majority rule or by popular rant…
Again I ask : show me an official statement, decree, encyclical, council edict ANYTHING that is on the book of the Church that says the teaching authority of the Church allows Catholics to dismiss the 1616 decree?.
S
sambos671
Guest
I’m sorry Cardinal Bellarmine made more of those verses than the original intent. He hit the point when he said
. Unfortunately, he seems a bit arrogant. And his ability to interpret scripture is in question. If the Catholic Church views it the same way as Cardinal Bellarmine then there are issues.
C
cassini
Guest
Whatever you say Pope sambos671. Indeed every Copernican I know is their own pope, You insult the memory of a great saint. But what’s new in the Church since you all fell for the Devil’s tricks, even getting you to insult God’s saints.
V
VociMike
Guest
Cassini, I have one last question. Is there any experiment that could be done that would conclusively demonstrate that geocentrism is correct? One who’s results would have to be accepted by the scientific world as proof of geocentrism?
S
sambos671
Guest
I just call things as I see them. Paul insulted great saints too. Just ask John Mark. I am not the Pope. Nor have I claimed to be. However, reading your quote of the Cardinal’s statement he making more of things then he aught to have. If he had said something to the effect "Galileo’s heliocentric view could lead to a misunderstanding of man’s place in God’s thoughts would have been more on the mark. On the other hand you keep mentioning that there is nothing that could be construed in the discourse between Galileo and this Cardnal that would be considered a doctrinal teaching of the Church. So why are you insulted? Surely, the cardnals views on this matter are open to criticism. Unless, it is dogmatic teaching of the church as with regard to geocentrism.
C
cassini
Guest
Mike, the question of G v H has long gone past the realm of faith and science. First you must know the religious and scientific history of heliocentricism to be able to judge any particular argument for or against either.
SCIENCE. The dogs in the streets know there is NO empirical proof for H. There is however a massive amount of scientific deceit over hundreds of years getting the world to believe there is proof. All this ‘science’ came to a head when science decided to put the phenomenon of stellar aberration to a definitive test. If you do not know what SA is, when and how it was discovered then you will not be able to discern the facts as I repeat them. After 100 years science decided to try this experiment when Airy put it to the test. It resulted in evidence for a fixed earth and moving stars. But H is not science, it is an item of PROPAGANDA with which the Church of Christ is BEATEN with. So NO such deciding test will be accepted by ‘science’. So what did they do. They made up ad hocs to WORM their way out of it, that is, they put forward physics thay MIGHT show the test was not definitive.
The second experiment that showed direct evidence for a fixed earth was the 1887 M&M test. Again a fixed earth science was UNACCEPTABLE to the world so more ad hocs were invented. But a fixed earth result still remained. For 20 years it could not be falsified. ‘Science’ decided what was needed was a GENIUS who could invent something that would get the earth moving again. Thus the world got Einstein with another bunch of ‘theories’ that were put forward fas proof for a H world. In all probability were it not that the M&M experiment showed a non moving earth the world would never have heard of a man whose WIFE did his Maths.
On the religious front the denial is every much as sinister as the scientific. Once Churchmen, that is POPES, were convinced that the earth moved around the sun, the 1616 decree HAD TO BE SUPPRESSED. The last thing these Churchmen wanted the world to know was that an immutable decree of the Catholic Church was proven to be in error (which it was not as G is as valid as ever immunine as it is to falsification). My God we cannot have that. So every effort to HIDE the religious consequence was hidden from man. Different versions of the affair were repeated and repeated in a way to make it look like the 1616 decree was no more than the waffling of ignorant theologians. The Catholic Church cannot have popes declaring heresies and threatening heretics with excommunication in error, can it. NO So the world will NEVER get the truth of it from the Church now either.
So, both faith and science have ben compromised. What a feat for Lucifer, silencing the Church and getting its own to do it for him without even knowing it.
What is far worse is that today, EVEN WHEN TOLD THE TRUTH, Catholics will resist it with the last breath of their body. Even when told the Church NEVER mis interpreted the Scriptures, nor falsely declared a heresy, that is, when told Christ’s Church WAS protected by the Holy Gjhost on that day in 1616, NOBODY wants to know. So much for the Catholic faith that I know to be INSTINCTIVE, that is, an inner access to truth by way of the faith.
C
cassini
Guest
Sam, Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.
Robert Bellarmine had many interests, one being an affinity for science. At the University of Louvain he was qualified enough to lecture on astronomy and in 1611 had viewed the sky through a telescope and had seen ‘some very marvellous things’. Thus we can see that he was qualified to judge and comment on all aspects of the Galileo case
Now Sam, thanks to a LIE (that H is a proven fact) this saint has come under attack from WITHIN the Church as well as without. I get upset when I hear or read people like US, who would not be 1,000th as learned as he, belittle what he had to say.
Yes it was only a letter in 1615 and had NO official status at all. But what his full letter does is show us HOW the Church thought at that time. But even this has been perverted by the post Newtonian Copernicans in trying to WORM their way out of the 1616 decree as though it was an official document that declared the problem open even AFTER the 1616 and 1633 Church said it was defined and declared immutably, forever.
G
grannymh
Guest
As it has been said in many ways on many threads – the actual Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church has to do with issues of faith and morals and not with issues of science per se. Individuals, on any level of importance, can always speak their minds and often do just that. But this should not be confused with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
C
cassini
Guest
Granny, stop repeating such utterences like a parrot and show your readers why ALL Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 were wrong when thinking HOW to interpret the Scriptures - no matter the subject mastter - was NOT A MATTER OF FAITH.
Here is what Cardinal Bellarmine said
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
But granny knows better?
G
grannymh
Guest
There are as many matters of faith as there are individuals and commentators who discuss them. No doubt about that. All I am pointing out is that there is the Catholic Deposit of Faith which should not be confused with individual, regardless of rank, interpretations of science theories even when a particular science theory is right.
Here is a scientific issue which is a good example of the Deposit of Faith. What happens when the conclusion of a scientific theory is that there is no God? How is the “scientific” idea of a non-existence of God handled as a part of the Deposit of Faith? The Catholic Church deals with faith in God regardless of where the questions come from, e.g., from a scientific theory or from pagan myths. Can the Catholic Church counsel others regarding faith or morals based on an atheistic conclusion from a scientific theory? Yes, it can counsel all of humanity regarding faith and especially morals. Can the Church counsel scientists to reexamine evidence and conclusions in the light of morality? Yes, but when it does so, it is because Divine Revelation regarding human morality is contained in the Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Church cannot chose a more favorable scientific theory regarding God and add it to the Deposit of Faith. It certainly will give lots of opinions, but opinions, even the most true ones about science, do not belong in the Deposit of Faith as Dogmas.
What about the Index, which no longer exists? Can the Catholic Church be concerned about how certain scientific theories will influence Catholics? Yes and that concern is often known as pastoral considerations regarding Catholic beliefs. The Index [a list restricting or forbidding the reading of certain books] which is referred to in the time of Galileo can be seen as an example of pastoral concern even though at first, it went overboard.
One needs to look at the social environment of the sixteenth century when the original Index was established. The Renaissance was in full force with Universities desperately competing for scientific geniuses often without regard to religion. Martin Luther had just died in 1546. His followers like Knox, Calvin, the Wesley brothers, and others were converting Europe. Of course there was pastoral concern as to how the pressures of the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance would affect the ordinary Catholic.
Thus, the Index was born. It basically depended on people filing complaints regarding possible theological or moral errors in books/tracts including scientific ones. These complaints would be reviewed, etc. with the goal of protecting the faith of ordinary, and often uneducated, Catholics. It is understandable why Galileo’s earth shaking ideas would be examined. Personally, while I can understand the politics of the times, I do not consider that an excuse for the treatment given Galileo. I deeply regret the sufferings of Galileo.
Nonetheless, judging from my own personal observation regarding the Index, it would be reasonable to assume that some leeway with the Index was eventually exercised individually in favor of the Universities. My firsthand experience with the Index occurred at an University in a literature class conducted by a very, very old Jesuit. He explained that some of the European fiction classics we could be reading would be on the Index–which by the way was already on its way out of Catholic life. Why on the Index? Nasty sexual connotations which obviously could endanger our Christian moral lives.
This professor went on to say that we could read everything on the Index if we so chose. Apparently, the University had some kind of carte blanche regarding material on the Index. My personal opinion is that given the politics of University prestige in previous centuries, this kind of individual leeway could possibly date back more than a few years. Nevertheless, for some reason, my classmates weren’t at all interested in the non-fiction works.
Interpreting the Scriptures regarding matters of faith has existed since the first Church Council described in Acts. My intention is not to dispute that. My intention is to make clear what is actually in the “Dogmatic” realm of the Catholic Church. This is the realm of Divine Revelation concerning faith and morals. The Deposit of Faith does not include official, formally defined choices between various scientific theories.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding grannymh post 76.
While my personal opinion regarding the effectiveness of the Index comes from firsthand experience, I have now come across additional information on the Index based on geographical location.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Censorship and enforcement
“The Index, however, had little effect outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, as it lacked an effective means of enforcement. The inability of the Church in Rome to enforce the banning of works by authors such as rKeple resulted in their availability in northern Europe, allowing Kepler’s work to be used as the foundation for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, which significantly influenced the formation of modern physics”
Blessings,
granny
John 3:16 & 17
While my personal opinion regarding the effectiveness of the Index comes from firsthand experience, I have now come across additional information on the Index based on geographical location.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Censorship and enforcement
“The Index, however, had little effect outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, as it lacked an effective means of enforcement. The inability of the Church in Rome to enforce the banning of works by authors such as rKeple resulted in their availability in northern Europe, allowing Kepler’s work to be used as the foundation for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, which significantly influenced the formation of modern physics”
Blessings,
granny
John 3:16 & 17
- Status