Using the Galileo Affair Against the Church

[Ghosty]

All doctrines are infallible, actually, by definition. The Ordinary Magisterium hasn’t spoken doctrinally on the issue because it can’t directly address scientific issues. It CAN address interpretation of Scripture, however, but the Church has only done so as a matter of discipline in the instances you speak of, not dogmatically or doctrinally.

I wonder why God chooses to start the Pentanuch with a detailed description of how He created the universe, animals, man, etc.? What does this have to do with salvation? Is this not part of the Church’s charter?

Yes, this does indeed fall under the Church’s charter, and the Church has stated that the language used in Genesis is figurative, not literalist, though it describes reality. This is from the CCC. There are certain aspects of Genesis that are not figurative, but the Church has specifically laid out which parts are literalist and says the rest is figurative. We can read those parts figuratively without concluding that humanity is just a speck of scum floating through the universe.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ghosty:

Remember, the Church has NEVER claimed to be infallible on non-spiritual issues. Augustine even made this a very explicit part of his arguments. The Church is not a scientific University, it is the means for Salvation instituted by God. Science isn’t even in its charter.

Fair enough, but then she should stick to her own business. She evidently thought she was highly qualified to throw stones about that issue, at that time. If she goes around condemning people about areas other than faith and morals, then she makes herself a target of ridicule and skepticism.

IOW, she doesn’t let not knowing what she was talking about stop her from spewing hot air on just one issue, but we’re supposed to believe her in the really important ones who are unobservable.

Alan

 

[Ghosty]

Alan: You should read up a bit more about the Galileo affair. The Church universities had been teaching Copernicanism for decades before Galileo came on the scene. The reason for the upset was that Galileo claimed that Copernicanism proved Scripture wrong, not that he was teaching it. The Church disagreed, obviously, and challenged him on it. Unfortunately, rather than simply say it didn’t affect Scripture, they (the people annoyed with him) got drawn into his scientific debate instead, and decided to try and prove his argument wrong scientifically rather than by Magisterial authority.

If you read the actual condemnation of Galileo, however, you’ll see that the issue was the “contrary to Scripture” part, not heliocentrism per se. Then they took Copernicus off the bookshelves so as not to relive the whole debate, again rather than take the smart road and just saying that Galileo was wrong in saying it contridicted Scripture. Galileo threw the first punch, however, and that is without a doubt.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ghosty. Thank you; that’s good information.

I accuse the Church of condemning what it doesn’t understand, because I have this plank in my eye that makes everything look a bit that way. It’s just so much fun to make stuff up as I go rather than to actually go do the research and know what I’m talking about.

Alan

 

[Ghosty]

For what it’s worth, I agree with you (and JPII) that the Church took things too far with Galileo and Copernicanism. It’s just that many people forget, or didn’t realize, that Copernicus was actually an official in the Catholic Church, his work was supported by the Church, and his theories were taught in Catholic universities all before Galileo came along. Galileo said “If this is true, then the sun couldn’t have stopped in the sky! The Bible is wrong, admit it!” and the Church said “Awww, ****. How do we deal with this AND the Protestant “Reformation” at the same time? I know, lets shut Galileo up in his house until he dies. It would take too long, and too much writing in Latin, to prove him wrong.” Not the smartest of approaches, but at least it was earnest and didn’t contradict infallible truth.

In a way I almost miss that kind of brazen approach, espescially in the U.S. “Do we really have to PROVE this guy wrong? Can’t we just lock him up since we KNOW he’s wrong?”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I hope nobody minds a slight digression…

If I recall properly, I once read in a Stephan Hawking book that the Big Bang was developed and promoted by a priest working at the Vatican. It actually was considered a way to reconcile current teaching with the Church; not something opposed to the Church like a lot of people seem to think it is.

Does anyone know the specifics on that?

Alan

 

[trth_skr]

Ghosty:

Alan: You should read up a bit more about the Galileo affair. The Church universities had been teaching Copernicanism for decades before Galileo came on the scene. The reason for the upset was that Galileo claimed that Copernicanism proved Scripture wrong, not that he was teaching it. The Church disagreed, obviously, and challenged him on it. Unfortunately, rather than simply say it didn’t affect Scripture, they (the people annoyed with him) got drawn into his scientific debate instead, and decided to try and prove his argument wrong scientifically rather than by Magisterial authority.

If you read the actual condemnation of Galileo, however, you’ll see that the issue was the “contrary to Scripture” part, not heliocentrism per se. Then they took Copernicus off the bookshelves so as not to relive the whole debate, again rather than take the smart road and just saying that Galileo was wrong in saying it contridicted Scripture. Galileo threw the first punch, however, and that is without a doubt.

Ghostly,

you can try and sweep it under the rug by claiming it was a temporary disciplanary action, but the fact remains that three Popes interpreted the Scriptures to say the earth did not move. All the Father’s interpreted the Scriptures that way.

Are you saying that the Pope’s interpreted the Scriptures wrong? Are you saying all the Fathers were wrong?

MJW

 

[trth_skr]

AlanFromWichita:

I hope nobody minds a slight digression…

If I recall properly, I once read in a Stephan Hawking book that the Big Bang was developed and promoted by a priest working at the Vatican. It actually was considered a way to reconcile current teaching with the Church; not something opposed to the Church like a lot of people seem to think it is.

Does anyone know the specifics on that?

Alan

“…In 1925, Abbe Georges Le Maitre, an astrophysicist and Jesuit priest promoted a hot big bang creation event…”

I am not subscribibng to the site, but it has the info. you are looking for.

doesgodexist.org/MayJun01/TheBigBangAndTheBible.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trth_skr:

Ghostly,

you can try and sweep it under the rug by claiming it was a temporary disciplanary action, but the fact remains that three Popes interpreted the Scriptures to say the earth did not move. All the Father’s interpreted the Scriptures that way.

Are you saying that the Pope’s interpreted the Scriptures wrong? Are you saying all the Fathers were wrong?

MJW

Why shouldn’t they have been wrong ?​

Where do you stand on:

• the execution of heretics
• the death penalty
• slavery
• forbidding of usury
• the salvation of those alone who die as Catholics

All these have been changed - not all that is said is dogmatic: much of it is merely taken for granted, for lack of any alternative.

Which is why what the Fathers thought about geocentrism is not final - they were in no position to say otherwise than they did, because they were not scientists, and they had no scientific competence, and they lived at a time when astronomy had to make do with instruments & means of study which by today’s standards are backward in the extreme.

Papal letters of centries ago cannot oblige Catholics today to hold pre-Newtonian, let alone pre-Einsteinian, ideas: Alexander VII and Paul V knew of neither Newton nor Einstein, so they could and did not have to take any notice of their ideas. We do. So we live in a very different intellectual world from that inhabited by these Popes - they were not addressing the same issues of cosmology as Catholics today have to;those letters are not written with 18th century cosmology in mind, let alone that of ant later time.

Besides, why go back only to the 17th century ? Why not be consistent and go back to a wholly pre-Copernican universe - the Ptolemaic universe, as known to the Fathers ? If they are right, theirs must be the right conception of the universe - not that post-Patristic, untraditional, Copernican rigmarole. Let’s be good, orthodox, Patristic, Catholics, and reject all astronomy since the last of Fathers, St. John of Damascus (died 750)

And to be thorough, let’s petition Rome to finish unfinished business: let Rome declare the all but universal error of belief in the existence of the Antipodes a heresy.

True, this will involve the Church declaring belief in the existence of Australia a sin which separates one from the Church: but at least we will agree with Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Boniface of Crediton, and other holy men - and with the Bible, the Word of God.

Australianism is heretical because:

• It’s not as though this fancied Australia were mentioned in Scripture;
• and Ezekiel says that Jerusalem is “in the midst of the nations”
• but how can it be, if, as those raving heretics who preach of its existence insist, there be an Australia thousands of miles away ?
• Therefore, this fantasy of an Australia is wholly unfounded.
• No Saint in antiquity mentions Australia
• No Council refers to it
• No Father so much as names it
• Several holy men have been clear that it cannot exist, since it it would have to be at the Antipodes, which, as is clear from the constant tradition of the Church, are wholly uninhabited
• Besides, how could the Flood, which Scripture is explicit is saying was universal, have been universal, if the Maoris have been in this fabled Australia or New Zealand for 40,000 years ? It is plain & obvious from the Bible that the human race is far less even than 10,000 years old - never mind 40,000
• The Fathers say all men had heard the Gospel - how could they, if the very existence of this non-existent land were unknown ?
• St. Paul never went to Australia - yet he is “The Apostle to the Gentiles”: therefore, Australia is a fable.

It follows therefore, that belief in the existence of Australia is a soul-destroying heresy, vomited from the pit of Hell: having no basis in the Bible, the Fathers, the Councils, the decrees of the Popes, or in any part of Sacred Tradition.

Those who cling to this baseless error should be admonished, so that they may at the very least refrain from spreading this false doctrine. ##

 

[PhilVaz]

Gottle << Australianism is heretical because >>

Hee hee.

And geocentrists won’t like Google Earth, you can rotate the planet at will.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Gottle << Australianism is heretical because >>

Hee hee.

And geocentrists won’t like Google Earth, you can rotate the planet at will.

Phil P

I thought only Superman could do that:​

“And another thing that bothers me is the whole spinning-the-earth-in-reverse business. When Lois dies, Superman spins the earth backwards on its axis in order to reverse time…”

See also: Earth’s Core Spins Faster Than the Rest of the Planet ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

That’s a good observation.

It’s kind of troubling, though. How convenient it is to use hindsight to decide that this teaching must have been fallible and that one must not have been.

This is a recurring difficulty with it​

This infallibility thing has long been a problem for the Church, but of course she will never admit that because has to keep up the infallible image. Christ said the gates of hell will never prevail against His church, not that she would never do wrong. After all, the gates of hell cannot prevail against us if we believe in Him, and we do wrong on a regular basis.

If she was willing to stick her neck out on this physical issue and turned out to be wrong once technology shows us a more complete picture, how can we trust her on spiritual issues, which we cannot verify? That’s why I think she should quit claiming to be infallible.

My daughter tells me the Church has only spoken infallibly on about two issues, ever. Maybe she doesn’t claim to be infallible on all these other issues, and we’re just extrapolating “infallibility” into neverland.

Just because Christ loves His spouse, doesn’t imply He wouldn’t advise her shutting her yap from time to time. The Galileo affair might have been just such a time where she’d have been better off by doing so. Unfortunately, if He and His spouse have become one, then He becomes responsible for anything she goes out and does. He accepted that responsibility on the cross, where His Church protected itself against alleged blasphemy. Christ said he was a Son of God; Galileo said the earth was not the center of the universe. Do we really think that if Christ had come today we would have been so much smarter and wiser not to crucify Him? They didn’t know what they did, because they did not believe that God would actually come in the form of a humble servant. What we do to Galileo, that we do unto Him.

Alan

Total agreement there - well said ​

One doesn’t need to trust the Church to be infallible - she can make a total hash of things; & Christ would still be Christ. He, not the Church, “is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.”

IMO, the Church is too concerned with “head-knowledge”, & not enough with “heart-knowledge”. And I think she has painted herself into a corner by defining as true things which may or may not be true, such as the Assumption. She can perfectly well be the Church of Christ without being infallible, because what keeps her going is the strngth of God - not her strength. Her faithfulness to God is far less important than that God should be faithful to her. ##

 

[trth_skr]

## Why shouldn’t they have been wrong ? …

…

Read Geocentrism 101, Parts I, II, and III, especially Part III: Scriptural and Church Position. I think it will put things into perspective for you. All three can be found on my blog:

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I never claimed infallibility on the issue, but it would take more than your opinion (or mine) to overturn what has been done. Combine that with no scientific proof that the earth rotates or translates, and I say, why reject geocentrism?

 

[JimG]

Are you saying that the Pope’s interpreted the Scriptures wrong? Are you saying all the Fathers were wrong?

To the extent that they supported geocentric theory, yes, they were wrong.

Of course, they had no idea of the actual size of the universe.

Geocentric theory proposes that the earth does NOT rotate on it’s axis, but that the entire universe rotates around the earth every 24 hours.

The diameter of the observable universe is from 10 to 20 billion light years (i.e 10 billion times the distance that light travels in a year; light travels at 186,000 miles per second.)

Now imagine a universe with that diameter rotating around a motionless earth at its center every 24 hours!

As to the idea of a center: Current cosmological theory views the observable universe as the surface of a sphere (i.e. a 3 dimensional surface.) If a spacecraft were to set out in any direction on an interstellar flight and go “straight”, it would eventually return to its starting point, like Magellan circumnavigating the globe.

Any spherical surface–even a 3-dimensional one–does not have any point that can be considered the center. (There is a center point at the midpoint of the sphere’s diameter line, but to get there from the surface you have to enter another dimension.)

Now, how many scientists–astronomers and cosmologists–currently support geocentric theory?

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

To the extent that they supported geocentric theory, yes, they were wrong.

Of course, they had no idea of the actual size of the universe.

Geocentric theory proposes that the earth does NOT rotate on it’s axis, but that the entire universe rotates around the earth every 24 hours.

The diameter of the observable universe is from 10 to 20 billion light years (i.e 10 billion times the distance that light travels in a year; light travels at 186,000 miles per second.)

Now imagine a universe with that diameter rotating around a motionless earth at its center every 24 hours!

As to the idea of a center: Current cosmological theory views the observable universe as the surface of a sphere (i.e. a 3 dimensional surface.) If a spacecraft were to set out in any direction on an interstellar flight and go “straight”, it would eventually return to its starting point, like Magellan circumnavigating the globe.

Any spherical surface–even a 3-dimensional one–does not have any point that can be considered the center. (There is a center point at the midpoint of the sphere’s diameter line, but to get there from the surface you have to enter another dimension.)

Please read (especially)Parts I and II. I address these issues.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=918955#post918955

JimG:

Now, how many scientists–astronomers and cosmologists–currently support geocentric theory?

How manty Holy Spirit(s) support geocentric theory? Answer = 1.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Actually, Galileo was condemned for refusing to stop saying that Joshua did not make the sun stand still for a day.

His condemnation had absolutely nothing to do with his scientific theories.

 

[JimG]

Chris Jacobsen:

Actually, Galileo was condemned for refusing to stop saying that Joshua did not make the sun stand still for a day.

His condemnation had absolutely nothing to do with his scientific theories.

Yes, many highly placed Cardinals and other in the Church were perfectly willing to entertain his scientific theories seriously. What they objected to was his assertion that they proved the bible wrong.

It was the obverse of many in the religious community now who think they should use the bible to prove science wrong.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Yes, many highly placed Cardinals and other in the Church were perfectly willing to entertain his scientific theories seriously. What they objected to was his assertion that they proved the bible wrong.

It was the obverse of many in the religious community now who think they should use the bible to prove science wrong.

I, at least, am not trying to prove science wrong. In fact I use science in my arguments.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trth_skr:

LittleLes (Thread- Was the Church in Error, Part II) tried to argue that since the Church condemned Galileo for challenging the Church’s Geocentric position on Scripture, and supposedly since “modern science” has since proven Galileo wrong, that therefor the Vatican I proclamation regarding inerrancy of the the Church in interpreting Scripture was wrong, ergo, the Church is not infallible (by extension).

Catholic apologists supporting Geocentrism have warned that this is one reason to consider Geocentrism. By sweeping the issue under the rug because of some perceived embarrassment over Geocentrism, Catholic apologists are inadvertantly weakening the Church.

In the above referenced thread, I argued:

1. The Bible teaches that the earth does not move (geostationism- leading to Geocentrism).
2. The Fathers were all Geocentrists and interpreted the Bible Geocentrically- even arguing against the Greek heliocentrists long before Corpenicus.
3. Three Popes made official condemnations against Corpenicanism, including a Papal Bull.
4. he Church has never revoked these condemnations, nor claimed contrary to them in any official manner.
5. These condemnations are part of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Science has not proven Geocentrism false. Science has a philosophy that there is no center, but it is just that philosophy. George, Ellis, a famous cosmologist whohas worked with Stephen Hawkings has this to say:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,…For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” … “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.

W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Not only that, but since modern science is tied to Einstein’s General Relativity (GR), and GR states that there is no “preferred center” (conversely any center will work), then modern science cannot really reject Geocentrism as a theoretical possibility, which mathematically, observationally, kinetically, and dynamically does work. These quotes help illustrate this:

Max Born. physicist and personal friend of Albert Einstein said in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

So why is it so terrible to accept geocentricism, if it as as right as the other ?​

Here, from Einstein, himself:

[SNIP [see Post 1]…]

MJW

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

What you are describing, is how observations of entities are organised into sets of data to which bounds can be set by using descriptive labels, ISTM.​

Much depends on how the data are organised.

The problem with affirming geocentricism, is that it is as bounded a set of data organised by observation as any other.

And the trouble with organising entities in sets so that we can conceive ideas about them at all, is that created reality is a plenum of entities. We notice patterns between entities, because they suit the conceptions we are seeking to entertain - that does not make other entities that don’t suit our making of sets, & arrangement of data with in them, any less real or any less significant.

So the geocentric model, is as much a model as the other - it is conceived upon philosophical assumptions about existence, potentiality, reality, gravity, mathematics, and so on, as truly as a theory which asserts that the moon is made of Gruyere cheese…

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

You’ve made an argument for the validity of the geocentric model - you’ve not shown the invalidity of the heliocentric model. A model for a thing, is not the thing to which the model points. I remain a heliocentricist, because I have no talent for the sciences, but assent to the rightness of heeding those who do, and it seems they say otherwise than Catholic geocentricists: that is the very thing your post complains of. Not because one doesn’t care a button for 17th-century Popes, but because scientific endeavour is more richly endowed with means to investigate its proper objects than in the 17th century.​

You quote Sir Fred Hoyle. Why is someone with faith in God’s Revelation in Christ bothering with the words of an unbeliever who was not even a Catholic ? Shouldn’t you stick to the sources of infallible revelation provided by Almighty God for His Church ? What does a scientist know ? The moment it becomes legitimate to heed any other source than those of the Magisterium, it becomes legitimate to heed scientists, who unlike Popes are professional men of science. And what they say, disagrees with the 17th-century Popes. IOW, to rely at all on Hoyle, means torpedoing the Magisterium’s authority to say the last word on science: if your assumptions about where competence to pronounce on astronomy is found, are valid. On those assumptions, one can have either Hoyle - or the 17th-century Popes; but not both. For they cancel each other out.

Popes are not astrophysicists - they know, as Popes, no more about quarks, or galaxies than any of us might. The 17th century Popes probably knew far less than an intelligent 10-year old can now find out by reading or observation. That does not injure their authority; because St. Peter taught, not to enlighten Christians about the Horsehead Nebula, but about the ways of the Lord Who created it. The Book of Job mentions Aldebaran, the Pleiades, the Great Bear, and Orion, not to give us a lecture upon their distance or magnitude, but to show forth the majesty of their Almighty Creator. The physics of star-formation are for those learned in the relevant sciences - not for the teachers of the flock of Christ in what pertains to our salvation.

Was 17th-century Catholicism at fault because it was not a mere copy of that of the fifth ? Surely not. Yet it was not identical with it, but had grown beyond it. So also Jesus, by becoming twelve years of age rather than staying eight days old, grew before God & men to be more than He had been. The Church has to grow in wisdom & understanding - but such growth is not infidelity to the past, nor is it the end of the Church’s growth. Canonising any one time in the past as a pattern for all time yet to come is what Protestants are blamed for doing, whether rightly or not.

When Popes are treated as oracles in matters which they are incompetent to pronounce on, they may be graciously and humbly ignored in favour of those who are competent to speak on such matters; because we are born, not to live in the 17th century, but to glorify Christ in our own. Just as our descendants will be born with (one may hope) more knowledge than we have, to please God in their day.