I learned Catholic teaching and early history before I read Scripture. I learned about the life and death of Jesus Christ by ear at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass without retaining the particular Scripture citation. I am not used to starting with Scripture per se so I will skip questions 1-5.
- I have read the majority of posts regarding Galileo and related issues. From the tone of documents including correspondence I would offer that the case was about the individual Galileo and the reaction to his works. However, to understand this particular reaction, one needs to understand the Renaissance and the Reformation as the stage or setting for the events. There are plenty of posts which detail the different items regarding Galileo so I will not attempt to list them here.
On the other hand, I find that the modern reaction, 21st century, to the Galileo event, is off base when compared with the times of Galileo. It is almost as if Galileo is some kind of poster boy for the squabbles between creationism and science.
- There is no imperative for me to believe anything about the sun or earth other than Genesis 1: 1 While I have read various science posts, I am in no position to make an evaluation. If I had to make a choice, I would choose a moving earth over a non-moving earth.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
1-5 OK granny, fair enough. Pity though, for having debated this matter so much it really boils down to 1-5.
(6) For me granny, your answer is interesting. After hundreds of posts, back and forth, I now see clearly how history has delivered the Galileo case, just as you portray it above, all about Galileo’s ‘works’ and the Church’s reaction to them. I hope I presume correctly in interpreting his ‘works’ as his ‘science’. How true this is. History has tended to base the whole case on the ‘subject matter’ that was indeed cosmology.
But now, thanks to the numerous points raised on CAF I have at last found where the problem lies. It is not the ‘subject matter’ that the Galileo case was all about. No, it was all about the Church’s defence of ‘the ones who have spoken’ (
ex parte dicentis). I have long seen the folly is arguing the case
with Catholics on the grounds of modern physiscs. Modern physics is heliocentric physics and while Sungenis does it, I believe it is a waste of time, no worse, it actually gives credence to the physics of heliocentrism. The day Sungenis convinces anyone of G using H physics will be a day of miracles.
Rather it would be better now to defend G by arguing the case from ‘the ones who have spoken,’ that is, as a defence of Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. Thus I asked questions 1-5 as a lead on. Hopefully someone else will take it on or I might open a new thread with it.
(7) This question was asked for no purpose other than to find out if Catholics (the Galileo case is a Catholic problem) still believe the sun is fixed relative to a moving earth. For sun-fixers I hold out no hope. One cannot be a sun-fixer and a ‘CHURCH WAS NEVER WRONG’ defended. No, sun fixers are all the ‘THE CHURCH WAS WRONG’ believers. Indeed I find most Catholics today could not give a fig that the Catholic Church got so much wrong in the seventeenth century. I always had a problem with that, ever since I first read about Galileo in school in the 1950s. Blind faith when it comes to rising from the dead or turning bread into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ the manGod yes, we all do that, but blind in philosophy, apologetics, history, popes, theologians etc., is not for me. I want to know, to see evidence of that promise of divine protection when the Church teaches. Here I am, 68 years of age and I only just discovered today why the Priest wears green at Mass after the Epiphany. That for me was a wonderful find and I couldn’t wait to tell others. Everything in God’s Church is so right and well thought out. Everywhere God is found directing His Church. It was the same when I found the Church was never wrong in 1616 or 1633, no matter whether it was infallible, immutable, heresy, dogmatic, doctrinal, disciplinary, of Scripturte, of science or whatever. And moreso when I found no abrogation throughout history, nor a retrial for Galileo stating he was right all along in both faith and science. In other words, when I found out the hand of God not only did not allow his Church to err in 1616 and 1633, but did not allow the Copernicans popes to err by abrogation and retrial, I personally discovered a grace promised if one sought the truth, it literally set me free for all doubts about God preserving the Faith in His Church.
Alas, I also found that belief in Copernicanism is so powerful that most prefer to hold it by choice, even when told relativity prevails and no real proofs exist, even though this means they too must hold the Church, popes and theologians of the 17th century were wrong and deserve the ridicule and slander metted out to them throught the centuries.
…for theological truths. 