Heliocentrism and the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter MacBP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MacBP

Guest
So, I’m aware of the standard defense regarding the the Galieo controversy: Galileo wasn’t actually condemned for his work on Heliocentrism but for his attempts to change the interpretation of scripture. Most apologists seem to point out that Johann Kepler was formulating his own helicocentric view at the the time and was unmolested by the Church.

I have, however, just learned that works supporting Heliocentrism were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This seems to undermine the entire defense of the the Galileo affair. Granted, I don’t think this proves anything other than the fact that the Church make a mistake, but is there any rebuttle to the Index of Forbidden books or will I forever need to concede the Galileo affair?
 
Heliocentrism was wrong then and now. The two left standing are acentrism and geocentrism.
 
So, I’m aware of the standard defense regarding the the Galieo controversy: Galileo wasn’t actually condemned for his work on Heliocentrism but for his attempts to change the interpretation of scripture. Most apologists seem to point out that Johann Kepler was formulating his own helicocentric view at the the time and was unmolested by the Church.

I have, however, just learned that works supporting Heliocentrism were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This seems to undermine the entire defense of the the Galileo affair. Granted, I don’t think this proves anything other than the fact that the Church make a mistake, but is there any rebuttle to the Index of Forbidden books or will I forever need to concede the Galileo affair?
As I understand it, Gallileo published his works against the directive of the Vatican. Many of the books on the Index were there because they did not have the approval to be published just as much as because they were offensive in content. Even today, to be given a nihil obstat, a book must be free from doctrinal error. A book can be 90% good and true but have a few flakey elements and it gets a big “no”.
 
Heliocentrism was wrong then and now. The two left standing are acentrism and geocentrism.
While the Church would ultimately be proven right in Her rejection of Heliocentrism it would be dishonest to say that Her rejection of Heliocentrism was for the right reasons. Science was marching one way and (it seems) that the Church did Her best to stop it. I don’t think it demonstrates that the Church is anti-Science in general, but She certainly doesn’t look good in this instance.
 
I think we would need evidence of the books you speak of. I’ve learned that when it comes to “the Church did this bad thing” stories, there have simply been too many lies to grant anything without evidence.
 
Actually, he was in trouble for libel (in his Dialogues, made the fool quote mainly the Pope) and for teaching what was nothing more than theory as actual fact, and arrogant enough to call others fools (like the Pope) for questioning him.
 
While the Church would ultimately be proven right in Her rejection of Heliocentrism it would be dishonest to say that Her rejection of Heliocentrism was for the right reasons. Science was marching one way and (it seems) that the Church did Her best to stop it. I don’t think it demonstrates that the Church is anti-Science in general, but She certainly doesn’t look good in this instance.
While Catholic clergy had lots to say about the science of earth and sun, there never was a formally declared doctrine. There were lots of committees or commissions and high sounding statements, but all that does not qualify as a Major Church Council.
 
While the Church would ultimately be proven right in Her rejection of Heliocentrism it would be dishonest to say that Her rejection of Heliocentrism was for the right reasons. Science was marching one way and (it seems) that the Church did Her best to stop it. I don’t think it demonstrates that the Church is anti-Science in general, but She certainly doesn’t look good in this instance.
I would argue that’s all perception. Those that want to hate the Church and religion in general (obviously you are not one of them) like to take this stance. But I would point out all that the Catholic Church has done and promoted in society in the past two thousand years. The Church has created higher education as a system used by all western societies today, it has done much to promote science in the past. All of western civilization is built on the blood, sweat and prayers of the Roman Catholic Church. I would say it is silly to claim the Church is anti-science, or stood in the way of its progress, just because of the Galileo fiasco.
 
Heliocentrism was wrong then and now. The two left standing are acentrism and geocentrism.
Unless I misunderstand heliocentrism means the earth and other planets orbit the sun. When has the Church rejected that? We do orbit the sun.

Doesn’t geocentrism put the earth at the centre of the universe. That is not a Church teaching and are there any scientists who believe that?
 
So, I’m aware of the standard defense regarding the the Galieo controversy: Galileo wasn’t actually condemned for his work on Heliocentrism but for his attempts to change the interpretation of scripture. Most apologists seem to point out that Johann Kepler was formulating his own helicocentric view at the the time and was unmolested by the Church.

I have, however, just learned that works supporting Heliocentrism were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This seems to undermine the entire defense of the the Galileo affair. Granted, I don’t think this proves anything other than the fact that the Church make a mistake, but is there any rebuttle to the Index of Forbidden books or will I forever need to concede the Galileo affair?
The Church’s judgment against Galileo was a canonical judgment and not a doctrinal one; such judgments were reformable, and all the churchmen who tried Galileo knew that, as did Galileo himself. As what occurred with Saint Joan of Arc (“Jehanne la Pucelle”) some two centuries earlier, churchmen and Galileo knew that the verdict that was handed down against him could someday be overturned, reformed, etc. In fact, Galileo, after his sentence was passed down, asked to address the Holy Inquisition again, and I believe that they allowed him to do this.

Consider the case of Martin Luther. According to Wikipedia:
It was not until January 1518 that friends of Luther translated the 95 Theses from Latin into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be aided by the printing press. Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe.
Of course, Pope Leo X responded with his Papal bull Exsurge Domine on June 15, 1520, a mere two and a half years after the publication of Luther’s “95 Theses.”

Now consider Nicolaus Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.” That was (per Wikipedia) published in 1543 and widely disseminated. The Council of Trent opened on December 13, 1545 and concluded on December 4, 1563. Not a word about heliocentrism; after Trent, nothing. Not until Galileo’s “mild condemnation” in 1616, and even though, no Papal bull. After that, Galileo spent time walking in the Vatican gardens with Pope Urban VIII. (Ask yourself, “How many individuals could ever do that?!”) And then, he “went public,” and got censored again, this time, more firmly. And still, no Papal bull.

Have a look in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma.” Immediately prior to Galileo (with Trent, of course) and after, you’ll find “let him be anathema.” But with Copernicanism, nothing.
 
Unless I misunderstand heliocentrism means the earth and other planets orbit the sun. When has the Church rejected that? We do orbit the sun.

Doesn’t geocentrism put the earth at the centre of the universe. That is not a Church teaching and are there any scientists who believe that?
Heliocentrism was condemned by the Church in 1616 as being contrary to Scripture.
 
Unless I misunderstand heliocentrism means the earth and other planets orbit the sun. When has the Church rejected that? We do orbit the sun.

Doesn’t geocentrism put the earth at the centre of the universe. That is not a Church teaching and are there any scientists who believe that?
Heliocentrism was the sun was the center of the universe.

Actually neither has been proven and the math works either way. The only way we would know for sure is to view it from outside this frame of reference. No, acentrism is the popular view, there is not center or it can be wherever one wishes, which then doesn’t rule out geocentirsm. :confused:
 
Heliocentrism was condemned by the Church in 1616 as being contrary to Scripture.
No, it wasn’t; show me something from Denzinger’s, a Papal bull, condemnation from a local synod, regional council, or ecumenical council that says that heliocentrism was condemned as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the Deposit of Faith. A canonical verdict of an Inquisitorial court is not a doctrinal condemnation. Such verdicts are intrinsically reformable.
 
No, it wasn’t; show me something from Denzinger’s, a Papal bull, condemnation from a local synod, regional council, or ecumenical council that says that heliocentrism was condemned as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the Deposit of Faith. A canonical verdict of an Inquisitorial court is not a doctrinal condemnation. Such verdicts are intrinsically reformable.
Friday, the 26th of the same month [February 1616], at the palace, the usual
residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, and in the
chambers of His Most Illustrious Lordship, and in the presence of the Reverend
Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O. P., Commissary of the Holy Office, having
summoned the above‐mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious
Lord Cardinal [Bellarmine] warned Galileo that the above‐mentioned opinion was
erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately,
before me and witnesses, the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also
present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the
Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said
Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above‐mentioned
opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and
henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in
writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same
Galileo acquiesced in the injunction and promised to obey (Le Opere di Galileo
Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. 19, pp. 321‐322).

March 5, 1616

“Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church specially delegated by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Paul V and the
Holy Apostolic See to publish everywhere throughout the whole of
Christendom…And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said
Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine – which is false and altogether
opposed to Holy Scripture – of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the
Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium
coelestium, and by Diego de Zúñiga [in his book] on Job, is now being spread
abroad and accepted by many – as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite
Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the
Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth,
and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at
Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scorriggio, 1615; wherein the said Father attempts to
show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the Sun in the center of the
world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to
Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any
further to the prejudice of the Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed
that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium, and Diego de Zúñiga,
On Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite
Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that
all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this
present decree, it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively."
 
+JMJ+
Friday, the 26th of the same month [February 1616], at the palace, the usual
residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, and in the
chambers of His Most Illustrious Lordship, and in the presence of the Reverend
Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O. P., Commissary of the Holy Office, having
summoned the above‐mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious
Lord Cardinal [Bellarmine] warned Galileo that the above‐mentioned opinion was
erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately,
before me and witnesses, the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also
present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the
Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said
Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above‐mentioned
opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and
henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in
writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same
Galileo acquiesced in the injunction and promised to obey (Le Opere di Galileo
Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. 19, pp. 321‐322).

March 5, 1616

“Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church specially delegated by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Paul V and the
Holy Apostolic See to publish everywhere throughout the whole of
Christendom…And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said
Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine – which is false and altogether
opposed to Holy Scripture – of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the
Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium
coelestium, and by Diego de Zúñiga [in his book] on Job, is now being spread
abroad and accepted by many – as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite
Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the
Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth,
and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at
Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scorriggio, 1615; wherein the said Father attempts to
show that the aforesaid doctrine of** the immobility of the Sun in the center of the
world, and of the Earth’s motion**, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to
Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any
further to the prejudice of the Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed
that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium, and Diego de Zúñiga,
On Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite
Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that
all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this
present decree, it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively."
See what I bolded there? The Catholic Church has always been right, the sun is NOT the center of the universe, nor is the sun immobile.
 
+JMJ+

See what I bolded there? The Catholic Church has always been right, the sun is NOT the center of the universe, nor is the sun immobile.
Indeed, the sun moves around the center of the galaxy faster than the Earth moves around the sun:

hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AngelaChan.shtml
hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/IlanaEpstein.shtml

Still, the verdict by Galileo’s Inquisition was still reformable, hence, no Papal bull. It’s absurd to claim that a Pope can not make declarations on theological matters which he feels cannot be reformed at some time in the future. To claim otherwise would mean that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks.
 
Still, the verdict by Galileo’s Inquisition was still reformable, hence, no Papal bull. It’s absurd to claim that a Pope can not make declarations on theological matters which he feels cannot be reformed at some time in the future. To claim otherwise would mean that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks.
👍
 
Heliocentrism was the sun was the center of the universe.

Actually neither has been proven and the math works either way. The only way we would know for sure is to view it from outside this frame of reference. No, acentrism is the popular view, there is not center or it can be wherever one wishes, which then doesn’t rule out geocentirsm. :confused:
The earth and other planets in our solar system orbit the sun.
The Church does not teach otherwise and although I don’t know every scientist on the planet I would very much doubt if any credible scientist would dispute that.

What is our…centrism called?
 
*“If there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go around the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great dercumpspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary” * -Robert Bellarmine

I believe this quote is relevant to the Galileo Affair and to this thread as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top