Heliocentrism and the Catholic Church

[buffalo]

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?

The math works either way.

 

[Jehannette]

*“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.

This quote was, of course, made long before the advance of the Theories of Relativity. In any case, the Sun does move, as does the Earth. Galileo was right, but he was also wrong, not only on the Sun’s position in the Cosmos but on the tides of the moon, the shape of a suspended wire (a catenary, and not a parabola, as Galileo claimed), etc.

 

[thistle]

The math works either way.

You didn’t answer my question.

Heliocentrism is wrong because the sun is not at the centre of the universe and geocentrism is wrong because the earth is not the centre of the universe, then what “centrism” are we?

 

[jam070406]

This quote was, of course, made long before the advance of the Theories of Relativity. In any case, the Sun does move, as does the Earth. Galileo was right, but he was also wrong, not only on the Sun’s position in the Cosmos but on the tides of the moon, the shape of a suspended wire (a catenary, and not a parabola, as Galileo claimed), etc.

You’re saying the Magisterum of the Church was wrong.

 

[Jehannette]

You’re saying the Magisterum of the Church was wrong.

The Pope made a mistake in a canonical trial of an individual by rendering a canonical verdict which he, the defendant (in this case, Galileo Galilei), and the other judges all believed to be reformable (what would be the point of Galileo asking for permission to address his judges after their verdict was handed down to him, if he did not believe their verdict against him to be reformable?), the same type of mistake that he sometimes makes with the appointment of a bishop to a diocese or an opinion that he may express to a reporter. The alternative is to believe that the Pope is always infallible in everything that he says or does, and if so, what would be the point of him ever trying to speak “infallibly”?

 

[jam070406]

The Pope made a mistake in a canonical trial of an individual by rendering a canonical verdict which he, the defendant (in this case, Galileo Galilei), and the other judges all believed to be reformable (what would be the point of Galileo asking for permission to address his judges after their verdict was handed down to him, if he did not believe their verdict against him to be reformable?), the same type of mistake that he sometimes makes with the appointment of a bishop to a diocese or an opinion that he may express to a reporter. The alternative is to believe that the Pope is always infallible in everything that he says or does, and if so, what would be the point of him ever trying to speak “infallibly”?

The Magisterum, along with the Pope, viewed this as an issue of Faith that directly corresponded with Scriptures and the Church Fathers. And they condemned heliocentrism as contradicting Scripture. A condemnation never revoked. There is no way around this, it is fact. Either you believe Galileo was right and you can thus call into question any judgment the Magisterim makes and conclude infallibilty is a sham. Or you can trust the Church and those that put forth the theory of geocentrism, no matter how much of a kook you will be labeled.
But you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Jehannette]

The Magisterum, along with the Pope, viewed this as an issue of Faith that directly corresponded with Scriptures and the Church Fathers. And they condemned heliocentrism as contradicting Scripture. A condemnation never revoked. There is no way around this, it is fact. Either you believe Galileo was right and you can thus call into question any judgment the Magisterim makes and conclude infallibilty is a sham. Or you can trust the Church and those that put forth the theory of geocentrism, no matter how much of a kook you will be labeled.
But you can’t have it both ways.

Sure, I can; the Church has never extended the promise of Papal infallibility to Church courts and/or to canonical judgments which the Pope may make any more than the Church has extended that promise to books that a Pope, as a theologian, may write or to interviews which he may give. If Pope Urban VIII (or his predecessors and/or successors) truly believed that Copernicanism was heresy then they would have issued a Papal bull condemning it as such, just as Pope Leo X “Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther” issued Exsurge Domine.

The Council of Trent was in session for 24 years, and of the 125 anathemas which that Council issued, not a single one condemned Copernicanism, even though all of the Fathers who were at Trent were fully aware of Copernicus’ ideas, as was the Protestant observers who were invited to that Council.

Likewise, after Galileo’s condemnation and his subsequent “house arrest,” churchmen of high rank continued to visit him at his home, something that they would not have done if they were convinced that he was some “obstinate heretic” whose ideas were in complete error. Consider this section from the Wikipedia article on him:

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour. These plans were scrapped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested, because Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church for “vehement suspicion of heresy”. He was instead buried in a small room next to the novices’ chapel at the end of a corridor from the southern transept of the basilica to the sacristy.He was reburied in the main body of the basilica in 1737 after a monument had been erected there in his honour;during this move, three fingers and a tooth were removed from his remains. One of these fingers, the middle finger from Galileo’s right hand, is currently on exhibition at the Museo Galileo in Florence, Italy.

So, Pope Urban VIII’s “protests” (no doubt the Holy Father was still a bit “peeved” at his treatment by Galileo in the latter’s “Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems”) about Galileo’s burial were not viewed by the Church as being “infallible.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sure, I can; the Church has never extended the promise of Papal infallibility to Church courts and/or to canonical judgments which the Pope may make any more than the Church has extended that promise to books that a Pope, as a theologian, may write or to interviews which he may give. If Pope Urban VIII (or his predecessors and/or successors) truly believed that Copernicanism was heresy then they would have issued a Papal bull condemning it as such, just as Pope Leo X “Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther” issued Exsurge Domine.

The Council of Trent was in session for 24 years, and of the 125 anathemas which that Council issued, not a single one condemned Copernicanism, even though all of the Fathers who were at Trent were fully aware of Copernicus’ ideas, as was the Protestant observers who were invited to that Council.

Likewise, after Galileo’s condemnation and his subsequent “house arrest,” churchmen of high rank continued to visit him at his home, something that they would not have done if they were convinced that he was some “obstinate heretic” whose ideas were in complete error. Consider this section from the Wikipedia article on him:

So, Pope Urban VIII’s “protests” (no doubt the Holy Father was still a bit “peeved” at his treatment by Galileo in the latter’s “Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems”) about Galileo’s burial were not viewed by the Church as being “infallible.”

 

[jam070406]

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."

Sure, I can; the Church has never extended the promise of Papal infallibility to Church courts and/or to canonical judgments which the Pope may make any more than the Church has extended that promise to books that a Pope, as a theologian, may write or to interviews which he may give. If Pope Urban VIII (or his predecessors and/or successors) truly believed that Copernicanism was heresy then they would have issued a Papal bull condemning it as such, just as Pope Leo X “Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther” issued Exsurge Domine.

The Council of Trent was in session for 24 years, and of the 125 anathemas which that Council issued, not a single one condemned Copernicanism, even though all of the Fathers who were at Trent were fully aware of Copernicus’ ideas, as was the Protestant observers who were invited to that Council.

Likewise, after Galileo’s condemnation and his subsequent “house arrest,” churchmen of high rank continued to visit him at his home, something that they would not have done if they were convinced that he was some “obstinate heretic” whose ideas were in complete error. Consider this section from the Wikipedia article on him:

So, Pope Urban VIII’s “protests” (no doubt the Holy Father was still a bit “peeved” at his treatment by Galileo in the latter’s “Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems”) about Galileo’s burial were not viewed by the Church as being “infallible.”

 

[buffalo]

You didn’t answer my question.

Heliocentrism is wrong because the sun is not at the centre of the universe and geocentrism is wrong because the earth is not the centre of the universe, then what “centrism” are we?

I didn’t get the question.

By definition, we can be the center. Humans will never know without outside (name removed by moderator)ut.

There are quite a few interesting things that point to the earth being in a unique place at the very least.

Galoctocentric data shows galaxies arranges in concentric rings about the earth.

 

[Jehannette]

jam070406:
It’s was a canonical declaration; not a doctrinal one. If what you are saying is true, then any individual who was excommunicated by a Pope could never be reconciled back to the Church by that Pope or his successor.

 

[jam070406]

It’s was a canonical declaration; not a doctrinal one. If what you are saying is true, then any individual who was excommunicated by a Pope could never be reconciled back to the Church by that Pope or his successor.

Heliocentrism was condemned, books on it were banned and Galileo was told to recant his theory, which contradicted Scripture.

 

[jam070406]

Sure, I can; the Church has never extended the promise of Papal infallibility to Church courts and/or to canonical judgments which the Pope may make any more than the Church has extended that promise to books that a Pope, as a theologian, may write or to interviews which he may give. If Pope Urban VIII (or his predecessors and/or successors) truly believed that Copernicanism was heresy then they would have issued a Papal bull condemning it as such, just as Pope Leo X “Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther” issued Exsurge Domine.

The Council of Trent was in session for 24 years, and of the 125 anathemas which that Council issued, not a single one condemned Copernicanism, even though all of the Fathers who were at Trent were fully aware of Copernicus’ ideas, as was the Protestant observers who were invited to that Council.

Likewise, after Galileo’s condemnation and his subsequent “house arrest,” churchmen of high rank continued to visit him at his home, something that they would not have done if they were convinced that he was some “obstinate heretic” whose ideas were in complete error. Consider this section from the Wikipedia article on him:

So, Pope Urban VIII’s “protests” (no doubt the Holy Father was still a bit “peeved” at his treatment by Galileo in the latter’s “Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems”) about Galileo’s burial were not viewed by the Church as being “infallible.”

Copernicus’s theory was viewed as wild speculation. Dominican theologians refuted his work. Even Martin Luther rejected it as contrary to Scripture.
Trent dealt with the heretical teachings of the reformers. Copernicus was dead at the time, along with his theory. Until it resurfaced again with Galileo. Then…it was condemned.

 

[grannymh]

+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.

Please do not confuse scientific theories with the Catholic Deposit of faith.

 

[grannymh]

It’s was a canonical declaration; not a doctrinal one. If what you are saying is true, then any individual who was excommunicated by a Pope could never be reconciled back to the Church by that Pope or his successor.

From the few heliocentrism threads I’ve read over the years, you are probably the sixth Catholic who is familiar with the meaning of canonical.

 

[Jehannette]

Copernicus’s theory was viewed as wild speculation. Dominican theologians refuted his work. Even Martin Luther rejected it as contrary to Scripture.
Trent dealt with the heretical teachings of the reformers. Copernicus was dead at the time, along with his theory. Until it resurfaced again with Galileo. Then…it was condemned.

Bad history. The astronomer historian Owen Gingerich has researched this extensively:

math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/copernicus.html

Again, Copericanism was condemned canonically and not dogmatically.

 

[jam070406]

Bad history. The astronomer historian Owen Gingerich has researched this extensively:

math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/copernicus.html

Again, Copericanism was condemned canonically and not dogmatically.

No. The Church ruled that it was in direct conflict with Divinely revealed Truth. There is no legalistic loop holes or spinning that will change that. Either Galileo was wrong or the Church was wrong.

 

[thistle]

I didn’t get the question.

By definition, we can be the center. Humans will never know without outside (name removed by moderator)ut.

There are quite a few interesting things that point to the earth being in a unique place at the very least.

Galoctocentric data shows galaxies arranges in concentric rings about the earth.

How can the earth be at the center when the earth orbits the sun. The sun does not orbit the earth.

 

[Jehannette]

No. The Church ruled that it was in direct conflict with Divinely revealed Truth. There is no legalistic loop holes or spinning that will change that. Either Galileo was wrong or the Church was wrong.

I don’t know of any theologian, then or now, who believed that the verdicts of the Roman Inquisition, even if they were signed by a Pope, were authentic expressions of the Magisterium. After Vatican II, Pope Paul VI “demoted” the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which means that it lost its Magisterial status. The same is true of the Roman Inquisition at the time of Pope Urban VIII – it only had the Magisterial jurisdiction which the Pope had granted to it. In the case of Galileo, its verdict was directed at him and not at the Christian faithful of the World.

 

[jam070406]

I don’t know of any theologian, then or now, who believed that the verdicts of the Roman Inquisition, even if they were signed by a Pope, were authentic expressions of the Magisterium. After Vatican II, Pope Paul VI “demoted” the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which means that it lost its Magisterial status. The same is true of the Roman Inquisition at the time of Pope Urban VIII – it only had the Magisterial jurisdiction which the Pope had granted to it. In the case of Galileo, its verdict was directed at him and not at the Christian faithful of the World.

No! ALL books on the theory of Heliocentrism were banned. Not just Galileo’s.