How did the Church go from having no qualms about the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, to banning his work for two centuries?

[Austere]

Forgive me if this posted in the wrong section or has been brought up before without my looking for it but it is a topic that intrigues me. Though very few people today (or so I would like to imagine) believe in the conflict thesis as espoused by Draper and White of a nigh-eternal conflict between religion and science, certain situations in the Church’s history have given that impression but upon closer inspection, may not seem so, i.e., the execution of Giordano Bruno on the grounds of his heretical beliefs as opposed to his scientific positions.

But the Copernicus episode, as a precursor to the Galileo affair, is on the whole a far more interesting and beguiling situation. I have read that the theory at first was accepted without consternation but only upon Protestant opposition to the theory that the Church soon changed it’s tune. Was Copernicus the unfortunate casualty in the context of the Counter-Reformation? And if so, why was his work, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, banned for a such a time after this period has elapsed?

I hope for your answers to be as stringent and uncompromising as possible, so that my thoughts may be allayed.

 

[historyfan81]

The Catholic Church was going to the recovery after the collpase of the world order phase that the rest of euresia was going trougth

The Mongol invasions ( excluding western europe ) the black death made euresia deeply conservative and afraid of new ideas

In the case of the the cruch the black death the great schisim of the 14th and 15th century , numerus heresies , and the protestans Reformation made the Catholic curch afraid of new ideas and anti technology

So yes Copernicus was a casualty of anti Reformation and other things that had build up for centuries