The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[DrTaffy]

No, I’m right

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

So that is a definite “no” on you being able to show where I claimed that Galileo was “imprisoned in chains” or “tortured” I take it? And this whole thread stands as testament to the failure of you or the OP to show such claims being made “in high school and university texts” as was originally claimed. So why should I try to address these silly straw man claims?

In contrast, you did explicitly claim that “the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever.” and yet have absolutely no response to the very obvious observation that that is exactly what it did in the Galileo affair.

In fact, I revise my original opinion (if only a little): while to me the most important lesson of the Galileo affair is still the importance of freedom of speech, especially scientific discourse, to you the most important lesson might be the one St Augustine tried to make way back then: don’t try to take a literal interpretation of the Bible as a Science textbook!

Also You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

 

[Stephen168]

So that is a definite “no” on you being able to show where I claimed that Galileo was “imprisoned in chains” or “tortured” I take it? And this whole thread stands as testament to the failure of you or the OP to show such claims being made “in high school and university texts” as was originally claimed. So why should I try to address these silly straw man claims?

In contrast, you did explicitly claim that “the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever.” and yet have absolutely no response to the very obvious observation that that is exactly what it did in the Galileo affair.

In fact, I revise my original opinion (if only a little): while to me the most important lesson of the Galileo affair is still the importance of freedom of speech, especially scientific discourse, to you the most important lesson might be the one St Augustine tried to make way back then: don’t try to take a literal interpretation of the Bible as a Science textbook!

Also You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

Which myth have you proved is not a myth? See Post #272

 

[DrTaffy]

Which myth have you proved is not a myth? See Post #272

So you cannot answer any of those questions?

Try this one:

How do you defend heliocentrism being heresy other than a literal interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Stephen168]

So you cannot answer any of those questions?

Try this one:

I will take the last few posts to mean that you agree that the myths listed in the OP are in fact myths

 

[weller2]

Yes, Bellarmine himself saying we have to interpret scripture according to the Fathers and St. Augustine is a Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church. St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong

Which part of

the Council prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and …] you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world

is unclear to you?

And we have Belarmine saying the Church will accept Copericanism if it can be proved.

No, we don’t. All he said was that, should heliocentrism be demonstrated, one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false, which is a far cry from the Church will accept heliocentrism once it can be reliably demonstrated.

As I said, if Galileo had proved it there would not be a trial.

No; there would still be a trial, with the same outcome, and the quote from Bellarmine above explains why. My allegorical story a couple of post upthread also explains why.

No, 16 years before science established the fact.

So on what basis did the Church accept heliocentrism 16 years before it was demonstrated? Why the non-observation of stellar parallax suddenly stopped being an obstacle?

 

[weller2]

No; there would still be a trial, with the same outcome, and the quote from Bellarmine above explains why. My allegorical story a couple of post upthread also explains why.

To elaborate:

Bellarmine was not defining the doctrine; the doctrine was definined by the councils (here, Trent) and the Pope. As Bellarmine noted, Council of Trent effectively made geocentrism an article of faith, due to unaminous consensus of ECFs on the matter.

Bellarmine’s job (and the job of any other inquisitor) was enforcement. Bellarmine’s personal opinion regarding the revision of exegesis is interesting, but Bellarmine was never in position to make such doctrinal pronouncements.

Bellarmine’s opinion on exegesis carries as much weight as the opinion of the head of FBI on gun rights – i.e. effectively none! Both are ultimately bound by the law written by someone else.

 

[Stephen168]

Which part of

the Council prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and …] you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world

is unclear to you?

Bellarmine was not defining the doctrine;

The Council, the Church, defined it. And the Church will decided what the scriptures mean.
St. Augustine:

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and the moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.

The purpose of scripture is to make us Christian (faith and morals)
St. Augustine:

If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth, but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant

If your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong.

Trent:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.

The exegesis of scripture belongs to the Church and it will do it in matters of faith and morals according to the Fathers. St. Augustine is one of the Fathers and one of the first Doctors of the Church.
Cardinal Baronius:

The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go

Again, the purpose of scripture is to make us Christian (faith and morals)
Cardinal Bellarmine:

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them [Holy Scripture] than to say that something [heliocentrism] was false which has been demonstrated.

The Church would accept heliocentrism and proceed with caution in explaining the meaning of scripture.

How the heavens go is not a matter of faith and morals. There is not a scientific truth and a biblical truth, there is only one truth.

So it is clear, the Church has never taught the the scriptures should be taken literally and it would accept Heliocentrism if Galileo could prove it. He never did.

 

[abucs]

It’s only a few misguided souls on the internet who don’t see the big picture who claim sincere apologies can be discarded with legalistic excuses.

I think your big picture is seriously lacking historical credibility and balance and shows all the signs of the ignorance peddled by the Progressive mis-education of last century.

From the ‘Catholic Church’s’ attack on Constantinople to the ahem Catholic Church’s support for the ‘Stolen Generations’ of Australia, such fabricated history is for the simple minded and usually peddled out in a broadside because they cannot be seriously defended individually.

What you are citing is the Progressive cultural mindset that was manufactured last century from our universities. It has no credibility, no attachment to the reality of history and used to slander a certain group of people for political advantage.

In short it’s cr*p.

 

[Stephen168]

the Council prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and …] you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world

Bellarmine was not defining the doctrine; the doctrine was definined by the councils (here, Trent) and the Pope. As Bellarmine noted, Council of Trent effectively made geocentrism an article of faith, due to unaminous consensus of ECFs on the matter.

Bellarmine’s job (and the job of any other inquisitor) was enforcement. Bellarmine’s personal opinion regarding the revision of exegesis is interesting, but Bellarmine was never in position to make such doctrinal pronouncements.

Bellarmine’s opinion on exegesis carries as much weight as the opinion of the head of FBI on gun rights – i.e. effectively none! Both are ultimately bound by the law written by someone else.

While the Council did not make egocentrism an article of faith because it is has little to do with faith and morals, you are correct in saying that deciding what is faith and morals is not the job of Cardinal Bellarmine; it is the job of the Church.

You seem to want to have it both ways. Bellarmine paragraph three is not the mind of the Church, but Bellarmine paragraph two is the mind of the Church.

As I have shown, Paragraph three is the mind of the Church as I quoted from others. Paragraph two is still the mind of the Church as I showed from Trent, but in light of the Council of Trent, he is on thin ice.

Claiming, “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.” is a myth.

 

[weller2]

While the Council did not make egocentrism an article of faith because it is has little to do with faith and morals, you are correct in saying that deciding what is faith and morals is not the job of Cardinal Bellarmine; it is the job of the Church.

You seem to want to have it both ways. Bellarmine paragraph three is not the mind of the Church, but Bellarmine paragraph two is the mind of the Church.

Yes, because in paragraph 2 Bellarmine is paraphrasing the 4th canon of Trent:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

There indeed is the unanimous consent of the Fathers that the Earth does not move!

Even if one were to accept the idea that the Church was open to revision of exegesis per Bellarmine’s 3rd paragraph, there still exists a legal catch-22, namely: even if one had an undeniable proof of Earth’s motion, presenting this proof would count as advocating heliocentrism, which was forbidden!

Galileo tried to work around that by writing a book in dialogue form, and he still got punished, because his arguments were too convincing.

Claiming, “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.” is a myth.

I would say this statement is oversimplified. A correct statement would be:

The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted in accordance with the consensus of ECFs, and the ECFs uniformly believed that the Earth does not move.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, because in paragraph 2 Bellarmine is paraphrasing the 4th canon of Trent:

There indeed is the unanimous consent of the Fathers that the Earth does not move!

The Council, the Church, never required geocentrism. It is your interpretation of Cardinal Bellarmine’s interpretation. See Post 284 & 286.

Even if one were to accept the idea that the Church was open to revision of exegesis per Bellarmine’s 3rd paragraph, there still exists a legal catch-22, namely: even if one had an undeniable proof of Earth’s motion, presenting this proof would count as advocating heliocentrism, which was forbidden!
weller2;12521549:

Let me walk you slowly through the letter:

in the first paragraph, Bellarmine states that heliocentrism is a useful mathematical device, and can be taught as such; however, would one dare to state that Earth in fact moves, that would mean contradicting Scripture which is of course a big no-no.

As you pointed out, you are wrong. There was no catch-22. The Church did not forbid heliocentricism outright. The Church had no problem with scientific inquiry. See OP

Galileo tried to work around that by writing a book in dialogue form, and he still got punished, because his arguments were too convincing.

Galileo’s book compared two models of a possible four. By refuting one model, Galileo did not prove the other (false dilemma). There was one more model that he needed to refute, which he never did. And he never proved Copernicanism or heliocentrism. The Church knew this. See Post 238
The Church accepted scientific developments as they were proven. Faster than the British Empire accepted the more accurate calendar. See Post 253.

I would say this statement is oversimplified. A correct statement would be:

The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted in accordance with the consensus of ECFs, and the ECFs uniformly believed that the Earth does not move

That is a myth. But at least you agree the Church never required a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[inocente]

Yes, the myths of the Galileo Affair do persist. But you have to find some way to bad mouth the Catholic Church even if you can’t prove the myths are not myths. That is your goal on this thread and the reason you can’t stay on topic.

That’s ridiculous.

The topic is in the thread title. It was me who introduced JPII’s statement. It was me who introduced his Pontifical Commission’s report. I linked facts, others posted fiction.

I accept the word of JPII on the truth of the Galileo affair. Those who prefer instead to dance to the tune of a know-nothing atheist blogger don’t get to be holier than thou.

And linking JPII’s apologies is not in any way bad mouthing the Church, it is accepting the truth rather than wallowing in fantasies, it is accepting the word of a Pope rather than denying history.

 

[inocente]

I think your big picture is seriously lacking historical credibility and balance and shows all the signs of the ignorance peddled by the Progressive mis-education of last century.

From the ‘Catholic Church’s’ attack on Constantinople to the ahem Catholic Church’s support for the ‘Stolen Generations’ of Australia, such fabricated history is for the simple minded and usually peddled out in a broadside because they cannot be seriously defended individually.

What you are citing is the Progressive cultural mindset that was manufactured last century from our universities. It has no credibility, no attachment to the reality of history and used to slander a certain group of people for political advantage.

In short it’s cr*p.

More history denial. The article I cited has references to the facts of the matter for every one of JPII’s apologies. For instance, google “stolen generations” and straight off you see:

*“As the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council acknowledged in its 1998 Sorry Day Statement, when all this was happening the Catholic Church did not publicly challenge the policy of assimilation that underpinned the taking of the children. We recognise now that the policy of forcibly taking the children away was, at best, misguided. For our Church’s failure to defend the rights of these children and families, we are truly sorry." - socialjustice.catholic.org.au/media-releases/250-church-bodies-respond-to-stolen-generations-case *

*"The Catholic Church in Australia welcomes and affirms the apology made in the Federal Parliament today in the presence of so many of the Indigenous peoples of this land.

We recall on this day our own statement, issued in 1998, in which we sought forgiveness from the victims of the policy that broke up Indigenous families, for any part the Church played in causing them harm and suffering." - brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/australian-catholic-bishops-welcome-national-apology-stolen-generations/*

Denying history may make some feel better about themselves, but they might wish to reconsider whether it’s a credible strategy in an age when everyone can check the facts for themselves within a few seconds just by using a search engine.

Unless you’re claiming that my cited Australian Catholic Social Justice Council and the Archdiocese of Brisbane are also fabricated?

 

[Stephen168]

That’s ridiculous.

The topic is in the thread title. It was me who introduced JPII’s statement. It was me who introduced his Pontifical Commission’s report. I linked facts, others posted fiction.

I accept the word of JPII on the truth of the Galileo affair. Those who prefer instead to dance to the tune of a know-nothing atheist blogger don’t get to be holier than thou.

And linking JPII’s apologies is not in any way bad mouthing the Church, it is accepting the truth rather than wallowing in fantasies, it is accepting the word of a Pope rather than denying history.

Not ridiculous. You are not here to talk about the Galileo Affair.

The OP list five myths. The Pontifical Commission on the Galileo Case agrees with the OP.

You claimed the Commission agreed with you that myth #3 (The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the bible had to be interpreted literally) was a myth. Your proof was one sentence from Papal address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. See Post 215.

I demonstrated that taking the Papal Address in total, which included quotes from St. Augustine and the Cardinal Inquisitor Robert Bellarmine, that the Commission believed it was, in fact, a myth. See Post 218

Your response was to accuse me of things I didn’t say, and suggest the Church was wrong without defining how it might be wrong, then repeated the same ONE sentence. More of a tantrum than a reasoned response about any of the five myths of the OP. See Post 251.

I reminded you that the subject of the thread was the five myths. See Post 254

Your response was another tantrum with no reason for your claim, “ The Church was wrong” See Post 256.

Another Poster explained in what way the Churchmen were wrong in handling the Galileo Affair but that the myths were still myths. See Post 258.

Your response was a rant that had nothing to do with the myths of the Galileo Affair. Because you don’t know what the Pope apologized for, I can assume you don’t know anything about the details of the other apologies, but it did gave you a chance to list many sins of Catholics.
See Post 271.

You are here to bad mouth the Catholic Church, not talk about the Galileo Affair. See Post 271 & 290

 

[DrTaffy]

I will take the last few posts to mean that you agree that the myths listed in the OP are in fact myths

Of course you will!

I will take your last few posts, with far more justification, to mean that you cannot answer any of those questions.

The Council, the Church, never required geocentrism.
…]
The Church did not forbid heliocentricism outright. The Church had no problem with scientific inquiry.

Nonsense. Galileo was explicitly forced, under threat of torture, to renounce heliocentrism as false and espouse geocentrism.

Despite the fact that the Church, even in its own estimation, had not scientifically proven heliocentrism to be false or geocentrism to be true.

From the Papal Condemnation:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

 

[Stephen168]

Nonsense. Galileo was explicitly forced, under threat of torture, to renounce heliocentrism as false and espouse geocentrism.

Despite the fact that the Church, even in its own estimation, had not scientifically proven heliocentrism to be false or geocentrism to be true.

Galileo’s book compared two models of a possible four. By refuting one model, Galileo did not prove the other (false dilemma). There was one more model that he needed to refute, which he never did. And he never proved Copernicanism or heliocentrism. The Church knew this. See Post 238
The Church accepted scientific developments as they were proven. Faster than the British Empire accepted the more accurate calendar. See Post 253.

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
   Actually, he did not.

1. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
   This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists.

1. “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
   The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally

1. “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
   In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome.

1. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

 

[ccmnxc]

The Ptolemaic model that had been around for centuries had been incompatible with a strictly literal interpretation of Scriptures, so it isn’t as if the Church was trying to salvage the Biblical cosmology by denying Galileo. Now, Galileo was, as far as I know, brought to trial on trumped up charges, due to the fact that He was idiotic enough to insult his benefactors and insist his model was correct even though he hadn’t proved it. The Church was protecting science, and arguably the ego of some higher-ups, but I’m not really sure one can say the Church was fighting scientific advances so as to preserve some theological point, especially in light of the fact that the science of the time wasn’t particularly compatible with Biblical cosmology either. Further, given the Aristotelian system of the time, the more corrupt and dense things (so not good) sank to the center, and since we were at the center, that didn’t exactly speak well about us. So again, the idea that the Church was trying to uphold some fantasized notion of human importance or prestige.
The science fiction writer Mike Flynn has a good set of posts on the topic for those with further interest.

 

[DrTaffy]

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

I have shown that the two ‘myths’ you proposed, that:

The Council, the Church, never required geocentrism.

and that

The Church did not forbid heliocentricism outright.

are false.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

More history denial. The article I cited has references to the facts of the matter for every one of JPII’s apologies. For instance, google “stolen generations” and straight off you see:

“As the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council acknowledged in its 1998 Sorry Day Statement, when all this was happening the Catholic Church did not publicly challenge the policy of assimilation that underpinned the taking of the children. We recognise now that the policy of forcibly taking the children away was, at best, misguided. For our Church’s failure to defend the rights of these children and families, we are truly sorry." - socialjustice.catholic.org.au/media-releases/250-church-bodies-respond-to-stolen-generations-case

*"The Catholic Church in Australia welcomes and affirms the apology made in the Federal Parliament today in the presence of so many of the Indigenous peoples of this land.

We recall on this day our own statement, issued in 1998, in which we sought forgiveness from the victims of the policy that broke up Indigenous families, for any part the Church played in causing them harm and suffering." - brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/australian-catholic-bishops-welcome-national-apology-stolen-generations/*

Denying history may make some feel better about themselves, but they might wish to reconsider whether it’s a credible strategy in an age when everyone can check the facts for themselves within a few seconds just by using a search engine.

Unless you’re claiming that my cited Australian Catholic Social Justice Council and the Archdiocese of Brisbane are also fabricated?

Seems to me you have made it your life’s mission to ferret out all the " sins " of the Catholic Church. Of course I suppose this gives one a certain sense of self rightiousness and self justification for rebellion against God’s appointed order. Yet one does have to wonder why no one else is ever expected to have committed any excesses of judgment which demand an apology?

Why not just google, " the sins of the Catholic Church " ?

Linus2nd

 

[Stephen168]

The science fiction writer Mike Flynn has a good set of posts on the topic for those with further interest.

To understand the Galileo Affair, one has to understand the Church, Galileo, and science.
As an analogy, I think of Galileo driving through an intersection and getting a ticket. Most folks seem to focus on him getting a ticket when they don’t realize the light was red at the time he drove through the intersection.

Three of the five myths of the OP have to do with science (the color of the light).

Michael Flynn’s The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown is a great history of science, and he does a good job with Galileo and the Church.