How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

[Pepband_Mom]

Curious

The tired, stale, worn out and oft used “Galileo CARD” has been pulled once again; where are indulgences while you’re at it.

It would be well for you to see Woods series on EWTN and READ HIS BOOK.

Why don’t you discuss: Early Church Fathers (what, a hundred of them or more? Try 5 million words attributed to St. Augustine) All this should take you up to the 8th century. For your edification try William Jurgens’ "The Early Church Fathers’ 3 volumes for an overview.

The MONKS who located throughout Europe and monasteries turned cities literally grew up around them - they were the priests, teachers, farmers, doctors, the mechanical experts, the movers & the shakers that got local people taken care of all in the name of Christ.

The Jesuits - try over 30 craters of the moon named for Jesuit mathematicians; as well as countless individuals belonging to numerous orders reaching throughout the world and the centuries.
.
Natural Law > Canon Law > British Legal system > US legal system

How about Bonaventure (spelling?), Benedict, Patrick, Joan, Dominic, Francis, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, yes, Thomas Aquinas, Dun Scotis, Francis Xavier, Gregory the Great, Albert the Great, Terese of Liseaux; Fr. Georges Lamatre (Father of the big bang) of course, JP 2 whose writings will take “100 years” to tear apart and understand.

A handful of names - Curious - feel free to read up on each of these individuals and then get back to us how a single individual can impact and transform the world. (Catherine wrote the Pope & changed his mind) - they have each altered history in a huge way.

 

[KathleenGee]

There are several Catholic responses and clarifications as to what in the world was going on with Galileo and the Catholic Church that are easily accessed on the internet.

Yes, these fellows should read the Woods series…

Some times it is boring seeing these insinuations that the Catholic Church is so dumb, pardoning Copernicus…what was it last year so?

 

[John21652]

Curious

The tired, stale, worn out and oft used “Galileo CARD” has been pulled once again; where are indulgences while you’re at it.

It would be well for you to see Woods series on EWTN and READ HIS BOOK.

Why don’t you discuss: Early Church Fathers (what, a hundred of them or more? Try 5 million words attributed to St. Augustine) All this should take you up to the 8th century. For your edification try William Jurgens’ "The Early Church Fathers’ 3 volumes for an overview.

The MONKS who located throughout Europe and monasteries turned cities literally grew up around them - they were the priests, teachers, farmers, doctors, the mechanical experts, the movers & the shakers that got local people taken care of all in the name of Christ.

The Jesuits - try over 30 craters of the moon named for Jesuit mathematicians; as well as countless individuals belonging to numerous orders reaching throughout the world and the centuries.
.
Natural Law > Canon Law > British Legal system > US legal system

How about Bonaventure (spelling?), Benedict, Patrick, Joan, Dominic, Francis, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, yes, Thomas Aquinas, Dun Scotis, Francis Xavier, Gregory the Great, Albert the Great, Terese of Liseaux; Fr. Georges Lamatre (Father of the big bang) of course, JP 2 whose writings will take “100 years” to tear apart and understand.

A handful of names - Curious - feel free to read up on each of these individuals and then get back to us how a single individual can impact and transform the world. (Catherine wrote the Pope & changed his mind) - they have each altered history in a huge way.

Fabulous post Pepband Mom.

I just need to add to your knowledge ever so slightly.

With this -
Natural Law > Canon Law > British Legal system > Irish legal System > US legal system> Australian legal system (where God is written into the Constitution) >Canadian legal system > New Zealand legal system >New Guinea legal system. etc, etc, etc.

And Curious, gird your loins and read about Australian John Finnis. It’s all still happening and it aint in Greek!

 

[Stephen168]

Galileo was imprisoned for violatiing his sentence on him by the Roman Catholic Church in 1616.

He was prohibited from supporting Copernicus.

Without reservation?

Copernicus, as you know, showed that Aristotle is wrong.

The Church preferred to believe what is wrong and prohibited Galileo from publishing what is correct.

In 1616, he could not prove mathematically his Copernican assertions (but, Aristotle did not either, though because of it being geo-centric, the Church accepted it).

Galileo “showed” Aristotle to be wrong but could not prove it?
Interesting definition of science

Later, Galileo was invited to explain himself again. Armed with Kepler’s math, and a new Pope, he agreed.

He failed to present the math properly and was charged for his continued support of Copernicus.

Math proved Copernicus was right?

 

[Stephen168]

despite Church dogma, the truth is exposed.

What dogma?
What truth?
When was that true exposed?
Who exposed that truth?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Without reservation?

Galileo “showed” Aristotle to be wrong but could not prove it?
Interesting definition of science

Math proved Copernicus was right?

Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the cosmos stood in opposition to the spheres model, which posited that the motion of the planets was caused by the circular motion of celestial spheres, surrounding the earth, in which the planets and stars were embedded. The idea was that each sphere drove the motion of the sphere within it it, which conveniently made the need for an unmoved mover (equated with God in a Christian context) to drive the motion of the cosmos.

Galileo’s role in all of this was his publication of Sidereus Nuncius, which detailed his observations with the telescope. One observation he made (which we take for granted today), was that the moon had surface features (craters, mountains, etc.). This contradicted the Aristotelian assertion that the heavenly bodies were smooth spheres, being more perfect than Earth. Worse still were his observations of four objects which traveled in a straight line near Jupiter, which Galileo correctly concluded were orbiting Jupiter, an impossibility in the celestial sphere model, since objects should only orbit the Earth. This basically was an indication that the Aristotelian model had some huge problems with it.

The final piece of the puzzle was Kepler’s law of planetary motion, which posits that the planets move in elliptical orbits. This, combined with Copernicus’ heliocentric model, created a much simpler and more accurate system to calculate the movement of the planets, as opposed to the Ptolemeic system of epicycles and deferents, and which when combined with Newtonian mechanics and the Law of Universal Gravitation predicted to just one degree of error the location of the formerly unknown planet Neptune, based on periodic deviations in the orbit of Uranus.

With all of this evidence, I think we can say pretty conclusively that Copernicus’ heliocentric model, combined with Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is a much better explanation for planetary motion than the Aristotelian geocentric model with celestial spheres.

 

[Stephen168]

Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the cosmos stood in opposition to the spheres model, which posited that the motion of the planets was caused by the circular motion of celestial spheres, surrounding the earth, in which the planets and stars were embedded. The idea was that each sphere drove the motion of the sphere within it it, which conveniently made the need for an unmoved mover (equated with God in a Christian context) to drive the motion of the cosmos.

Galileo’s role in all of this was his publication of Sidereus Nuncius, which detailed his observations with the telescope. One observation he made (which we take for granted today), was that the moon had surface features (craters, mountains, etc.). This contradicted the Aristotelian assertion that the heavenly bodies were smooth spheres, being more perfect than Earth. Worse still were his observations of four objects which traveled in a straight line near Jupiter, which Galileo correctly concluded were orbiting Jupiter, an impossibility in the celestial sphere model, since objects should only orbit the Earth. This basically was an indication that the Aristotelian model had some huge problems with it.

The final piece of the puzzle was Kepler’s law of planetary motion, which posits that the planets move in elliptical orbits. This, combined with Copernicus’ heliocentric model, created a much simpler and more accurate system to calculate the movement of the planets, as opposed to the Ptolemeic system of epicycles and deferents, and which when combined with Newtonian mechanics and the Law of Universal Gravitation predicted to just one degree of error the location of the formerly unknown planet Neptune, based on periodic deviations in the orbit of Uranus.

With all of this evidence, I think we can say pretty conclusively that Copernicus’ heliocentric model, combined with Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is a much better explanation for planetary motion than the Aristotelian geocentric model with celestial spheres.

What you say seems correct, but I’m not sure why you would reference my post when you did not address any of the questions.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Catholic
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Luthern
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Church of England

 

[Whadyamean]

I am currently reading this book (Thomas E. Woods) and am on the chaper The Church and Science and I am shocked at how our schools and media been able to get away with re-writing history for so long. http:////www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/0895260387/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

Eusebius, one of the most eminent historians of the Church, admitted that in his history he omitted all those items that were unfavorable to the Church and her rulers, and magnified all those things that would exalt her, The Bible itself has alterations, atributions, additions and amendments some just recently updated. There are as well numerous dubious translations as exemplified by George Lamsa, a native speaker of Aramaic. If all that happened, and we now that history is in nearly every case written to reflect the favoritism of the author, why would you not believe that, and more importantly,why would you not seriously and sincerely question Mr. Woods? Have you ever taken a class in comparative theology? History of world religions? Studied epistemology, semantics, theories of translation, meaning, interpretation, morphism in languages, colloquial and esoteric usage influences on translation and interpretation? Influences of cultural differences on clarity of meaning? Have you studied the history of the Church from at least three reputable sources outside the Church?

Hmmmmmmm…

 

[Cavaradossi]

What you say seems correct, but I’m not sure why you would reference my post when you did not address any of the questions.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Catholic
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Luthern
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Church of England

Galileo gave the first evidence that Aristotle’s framework for the cosmos might be incorrect; his observation that bodies were orbiting Jupiter was in direct contradiction to the idea that the cosmos was comprised of spheres.

 

[Stephen168]

Have you studied the history of the Church from at least three reputable sources outside the Church.

I think point of the OP is that ALL we know about the history of science is from outside the Church; the public school system in the USA. I know “the Church” has taught me nothing about the history of science and civilization.

 

[Stephen168]

Galileo gave the first evidence that Aristotle’s framework for the cosmos might be incorrect; his observation that bodies were orbiting Jupiter was in direct contradiction to the idea that the cosmos was comprised of spheres.

I don’t understand how you have answered any of my questions; unless you are saying that math did not prove that Copernicus was right.

 

[manualman]

Manual seems unfamiliar with the bias and bigotry within catholicism that must be re-evaluated periodically.

Non sequitor. You and I both (unless you tell me otherwise) have grown up and been educated in a culture imbued with the legacy of English hostility to catholicism. EVERY English speaking country is. Think about it. I have learned about and weighed in the opposing arguments from the balanced perspective of the catholic side explanation for the events (which are hardly a whitewash and entirely admit to conflicts of personality trumping principle) and weighed them against the prevailing opinion popularized in the culture that produced me.

You on the other hand, refuse to consider any but critical sources and dismiss any other perspective as biased and bigoted without the benefit of actually evaluating the testimony (unless you are exceptionally fast reader, that is). Ironically enough, that’s the very definition of bigotry! Woods is a respected and credentialed academic, are you? But you feel qualified to dismiss his work without the benefit of a cursory reading? Got a dictionary? Look up hubris.

 

[Marybeloved]

With all of this evidence, I think we can say pretty conclusively that Copernicus’ heliocentric model, combined with Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is a much better explanation for planetary motion than the Aristotelian geocentric model with celestial spheres.

I’m not at all knowledgeable at science, so forgive me if what I say is false and correct me, but didn’t Einstein’s theory disprove Newton’s gravitational theory?

@ Curious Seed
I fail to see how the Galilean story disproves in any way the Church’s building of western Civilization?

Does former American practice of Slavery and institutional racism; or British colonization of much of the World, or European conquering of the entire Planet disprove their respective influences in Modern Human Civilization? Should we now pretend that Europe did not build virtually the entire modern Global civilization?

Your reasoning in introducing this saga to this particular discussion is really quite puzzling . I don’t follow how exactly it’s supposed to disprove the assertion put forward. Was it Socrates who was poisoned for his thoughts? Does that therefore make the Civilization that produced him (Greek) non-influential in Western and (by extension) Modern World civilization?

Peace.

 

[JustaServant]

I am currently reading this book (Thomas E. Woods) and am on the chaper The Church and Science and I am shocked at how our schools and media been able to get away with re-writing history for so long. http:////www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/0895260387/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

A good companion to that book is “How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Thomas Cahill.

 

[manualman]

A good companion to that book is “How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Thomas Cahill.

Well that’s nonsense. Everybody knows the Poles get credit for that!

 

[Curious_Seed]

Non sequitor. You and I both (unless you tell me otherwise) have grown up and been educated in a culture imbued with the legacy of English hostility to catholicism. EVERY English speaking country is. Think about it. I have learned about and weighed in the opposing arguments from the balanced perspective of the catholic side explanation for the events (which are hardly a whitewash and entirely admit to conflicts of personality trumping principle) and weighed them against the prevailing opinion popularized in the culture that produced me.

You on the other hand, refuse to consider any but critical sources and dismiss any other perspective as biased and bigoted without the benefit of actually evaluating the testimony (unless you are exceptionally fast reader, that is). Ironically enough, that’s the very definition of bigotry! Woods is a respected and credentialed academic, are you? But you feel qualified to dismiss his work without the benefit of a cursory reading? Got a dictionary? Look up hubris.

Do I have a dictionary?

Under hubris, I read: manualman, see sarcasm.

That explains it, thank you.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Having read the various pro-Catholic explanations, I have to say… yours makes a heck of a lot more sense.

I have no intention to disbelieve the Church but I have a real problem understanding their reasoning here… it was a crime to defy geocentrism just because he didn’t have absolute proof? I don’t understand. If it wasn’t doctrine, who the flip cares whether he disbelieved it??? It’s as if they were treating geocentrism as doctrine…

Bingo !

Thank you, for the compliment.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Telling you that you gave a non-answer is rude?!

My, such a sensitive soul, aren’t we?

You originally wrote about Galileo and his trials and from that you seemed to conclude this -
To which I replied -

The thing is, you respond with curt one liners that do not even vaguely answer the genuine posts of others and then have the gall to say “we clearly don’t agree…”.
the thing is, despite your one line responses, I don’t know what it is you even think, because your first response was only saying my right was wrong.

C’mon, if you are brave enough to tell someone they are wrong, surely you can be brave enough to elaborate your argument and show why they are wrong?

I am sorry you don’t know when you are being rude, but it does excuse why you continue to be.

Bluntly, if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church built Western Civilization, please continue to do so. I believe the Greek and Roman Civilizations are the basis of Western Civilization, not the Roman Catholic Church.

If you are game to exploring this, I am in; but, it may prove to be the longest thread in the history of the Forum.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Curious

The tired, stale, worn out and oft used “Galileo CARD” has been pulled once again; where are indulgences while you’re at it.

It would be well for you to see Woods series on EWTN and READ HIS BOOK.

Why don’t you discuss: Early Church Fathers (what, a hundred of them or more? Try 5 million words attributed to St. Augustine) All this should take you up to the 8th century. For your edification try William Jurgens’ "The Early Church Fathers’ 3 volumes for an overview.

The MONKS who located throughout Europe and monasteries turned cities literally grew up around them - they were the priests, teachers, farmers, doctors, the mechanical experts, the movers & the shakers that got local people taken care of all in the name of Christ.

The Jesuits - try over 30 craters of the moon named for Jesuit mathematicians; as well as countless individuals belonging to numerous orders reaching throughout the world and the centuries.
.
Natural Law > Canon Law > British Legal system > US legal system

How about Bonaventure (spelling?), Benedict, Patrick, Joan, Dominic, Francis, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, yes, Thomas Aquinas, Dun Scotis, Francis Xavier, Gregory the Great, Albert the Great, Terese of Liseaux; Fr. Georges Lamatre (Father of the big bang) of course, JP 2 whose writings will take “100 years” to tear apart and understand.

A handful of names - Curious - feel free to read up on each of these individuals and then get back to us how a single individual can impact and transform the world. (Catherine wrote the Pope & changed his mind) - they have each altered history in a huge way.

Get back to “us” ?

Is this thread about how a single individual can impact and transform the world?

Interesting reading, Pepband, but irrelevant to the thread title.

Still, quite informative, thank you.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Without reservation?

Galileo “showed” Aristotle to be wrong but could not prove it?
Interesting definition of science

Math proved Copernicus was right?

Yes, math proved Copernicus is right.

If you cannot explain physics mathematically, you have no explanation, just proclamation.

Aristotle proclaimed and the Church liked its geo-centric model, and adopted it, now talk about an “interesting” definition of science.