Was Galileo forced to recant or else ...?

[brb3]

It’s not JUST that… Galileo Galilei was ordained to minor orders; he was not a layman. He was thus subject to solemn promises of obedience, and had been instructed to not publish without imprimatur and nihil obstat…

… but published without submitting for imprimatur and nihil obstat.

For a layman, such dabbling in theology might have gotten a reprimand. But for a clerk (minor cleric), it was a direct violation of his ordination promises.

Good point … Galileo was not mistreated, just rightly serving out his Penance!

 

[grannymh]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on these issues.
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

"Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority and science, to which special theological importance has been attached in connection with the question of papal infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra. "

---

The above
precisely demonstrates that all the times when the words “doctrine” and the four-letter word “heresy” were used in reference to the material/physical world of natural science – the conditions for declaring a Catholic doctrine were obviously not present.

Today, Catholics are free to teach the science of geocentricism and today, Catholics are free to ignore these teachings in favor of other scientific teachings.

 

[Evan]

The center of this Universe being …that point where the big bang initiated…which mathematically, can be located.

Is that where God now sits, ruling the Heavens ?

If the big bang is correct, there is no center of the universe. The center of the universe is like the center of the surface of a ball or the center of the surface of the earth.

The big bang says the volume of space increased from 0 as did the distance from one point until you return to that same point without turning back. Like moving on a great circle on the earth. You never pass the center, you never turn back, but you eventually return to your starting point.

The big bang originated in my kitchen, so that is the center of the universe.

 

[brb3]

If the big bang is correct, there is no center of the universe. The center of the universe is like the center of the surface of a ball or the center of the surface of the earth.

The big bang says the volume of space increased from 0 as did the distance from one point until you return to that same point without turning back. Like moving on a great circle on the earth. You never pass the center, you never turn back, but you eventually return to your starting point.

The big bang originated in my kitchen, so that is the center of the universe.

Not sure about your view here.

We can see back to when light began, where elements, molecules were forming (when heat of big bang cooled enuf to allow them to exist) …this nuclear hydrogen / helium going out to coalesce & form stars. And, the theoretical counterpoint of BigBang can be projected. Xray & thermal detectors, able to compute maps of the location of universe’s Biblical GENESIS EVENT.

 

[buffalo]

Not sure about your view here.

We can see back to when light began, where elements, molecules were forming (when heat of big bang cooled enuf to allow them to exist) …this nuclear hydrogen / helium going out to coalesce & form stars. And, the theoretical counterpoint of BigBang can be projected. Xray & thermal detectors, able to compute maps of the location of universe’s Biblical GENESIS EVENT.

If everything is moving away from everything else how can we?

 

[R_C]

The center of this Universe being …that point where the big bang initiated…which mathematically, can be located.

Is that where God now sits, ruling the Heavens ?

How can you locate the origin of an infinite space?

As far as God, “in Him we live, move, and have our being”. St. Augustine had quite a lot of interesting things to say about this.

 

[bzkoss236]

How can you locate the origin of an infinite space?

As far as God, “in Him we live, move, and have our being”. St. Augustine had quite a lot of interesting things to say about this.

There is no evidence to suggest that space is infinite. Actually, some theorize that, similar to how one guy said in a post above, that space-time is more like the surface of a sphere.

The truth is, we don’t know what limits, if any, there are to the physical universe in terms of space.

 

[Evan]

Not sure about your view here.

We can see back to when light began, where elements, molecules were forming (when heat of big bang cooled enuf to allow them to exist) …this nuclear hydrogen / helium going out to coalesce & form stars. And, the theoretical counterpoint of BigBang can be projected. Xray & thermal detectors, able to compute maps of the location of universe’s Biblical GENESIS EVENT.

It’s difficult to explain the topology of space-time. But I do have a Ph.D. in math (mathematical analysis) and have studied Misner/Thorne/Wheeler’s book on Gravitation. So I could give a much better explanation if this were a math forum. But I’ll just have to leave it as it is. Good luck finding the center

 

[brb3]

How can you locate the origin of an infinite space?

As far as God, “in Him we live, move, and have our being”. St. Augustine had quite a lot of interesting things to say about this.

Cosmologist, Mark Whittle, Univ. Virginia …has it all figured out

 

[brb3]

If everything is moving away from everything else how can we?

Can we what ??

 

[brb3]

It’s difficult to explain the topology of space-time. But I do have a Ph.D. in math (mathematical analysis) and have studied Misner/Thorne/Wheeler’s book on Gravitation. So I could give a much better explanation if this were a math forum. But I’ll just have to leave it as it is. Good luck finding the center

Problem is we can’t see the center ignition point …where God lit the match

The ‘Hot’ Big Bang occurred 14.4 B yrs ago. At the 400,000 yr mark, the CMB formed when temps cooled to 3000 K. …this becomes our microwave vision limit. But, via math, we can run the clock back O.4 B years …and find Genesis …

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m going to be weird now and say that the center of the universe resides at the point where the big bang happened when the universe was created. And since then, space-time has radiated outwards from that point. So, if this theory holds, the center of the universe does not exist within our point in time. But I’m not a mathematician or a theoretical physicist, so what do I know.

However, I assume that you could maybe find the median point of the universe, that is, a point at the center of all things on the outer edge of the universe (if such a thing exists).

Idk, just throwing out ideas.

 

[GodHeals]

Hi GodHeals. Hope your RCIA classes are going well!

From what I understand…Galileo looked at the sky and said: since the earth is not at the center of the world and the physical reveals the spiritual…Man is not the “apple” of Gods eye.

This is where he crossed the line. He mixed his science with his theology (an area he did not have the right to speak of…the church does) and came up with bad theology that he publicly spoke of.

The church would look at his work and could reason a different way consistent with our catholic theology…man IS a speck in the cosmos…but that does not mean that we’re not a most special part of His creation.

Thank you Michael. The classes are going okay. I seem to be reading everything else (such as Catholic.com stuff) but the class materials! Not good… God has blessed me so much in providing resources such as Catholic.com to grow in faith, and people like you to share the Catholic faith. God Bless You! Brian

 

[GodHeals]

The Church doesn’t teach about science. That is up for the scientists to figure out, so I don’t think the Church teaches Geocentrism. What is it that makes you think it does?

Also, science has well proven that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church cannot deny that.

I was reading through this website. So if Geocentrism wasn’t contradictory to scripture, why would the Church care? It seems that some believe in Geocentrism. I am trying to form an a better understanding to see how they fit with my view of young earth Creationism, for which St. Maximilian Kolbe also agreed with, I think, and he developed the space ship in theory, before NASA did, or something like that, as far as i understand.

I am one of the rare? Catholic Creationists! But yes I have a lot to learn as science it my weakest subject. It just seems to fit best theologically though.
kolbecenter.org/ – good website

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.

In fact, the Church has other dogmatic, infallible teachings such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary with less Scriptural, papal, patristic and medieval support than geocentrism. The Church has also not annulled her condemnations of heliocentrism. Those who hold the geocentric view believe that God made the earth the spiritual and material center of the universe for the Incarnation of His only-begotten Son, where Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetually offered “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Mal. 1:11), and where Jesus dwells in His Eucharistic presence under the appearance of bread and wine.

It is, therefore, consistent with Catholic teaching to believe that Jesus Christ, the God-man, has united divinity with humanity at the center of the universe which is earth. On a more basic level, if the earth is the center of the universe, then this means that someone (God) put it there. Given the dynamics of the universe, the relative positions of the heavenly bodies, and the size of the earth, it would be impossible for the earth to be the center of the universe unless a divine agent worked out all the details.

If the earth is indeed the center, then God is trying to tell us that we are special to Him. We are unique. We are destined to be with Him forever. This is why He opens His written revelation with the creation account. This is also why the atheists and agnostics want so badly to disprove geocentrism, because if they can do that, they can argue that there is no God. They want to argue that there is no God because they don’t want to be accountable to Him. If science would definitively disprove the geocentric theory, then, as St. Bellarmine suggests, “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 than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.”

 

[aidanbradypop]

It was not the fact Galileo said the universe revolved around the sun…

As a matter of fact, the pope was very interested in Galileo’s works. They were friends. He was very intrigued. What Galileo did was begin to speak outside of his boundries…he began to use his science to teach against theological teachings of the church. He should not have done that. Since a crime against the church/God was a crime against the state back then…he was punished. Do you want to hear the worst of his horrible, horrible punishment? He was sequesterd in his mansion of a home.

Very well stated. Many people will use the Galileo argument when speaking out against the Church.

 

[GodHeals]

With regards to solar system, it was Copernicus - a Catholic priest or at least recipient of Minor Orders - who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. His system was presented before Pope Clement VII, who approved it, and urged Copernicus to publish it.

I thought the Church didn’t accept heliocentricity at the time? I know it was latter approved at some level. I am still unsure what the Church teaches as official or not official or the Church is neutral and always has been, but which wouldn’t make sense if Galileo was persecuted for his heliocentric beliefs.

 

[GodHeals]

It’s not JUST that… Galileo Galilei was ordained to minor orders; he was not a layman.

Is this true? I heard Galileo might have been a Priest or something, but wasn’t sure. Are you sure? I thought it wasn’t determined one way or another… lack of documentation, but that would be odd since the Church seemed to keep good records. Maybe that was someone else.

 

[GodHeals]

As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree.

Thanks. I wonder if the Church was trying to make it an infallible teaching or doctrine of the Church. The Church looking back, does it sound like the Church is trying to say that those Church leaders were trying to make a doctrine, but they where incompetent and had no right?

 

[Evan]

I’m going to be weird now and say that the center of the universe resides at the point where the big bang happened when the universe was created. And since then, space-time has radiated outwards from that point. So, if this theory holds, the center of the universe does not exist within our point in time. But I’m not a mathematician or a theoretical physicist, so what do I know.

However, I assume that you could maybe find the median point of the universe, that is, a point at the center of all things on the outer edge of the universe (if such a thing exists).

Idk, just throwing out ideas.

One last try: see this page: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

The matter in the universe is not expanding or moving away from some locaiton, the UNIVERSE is expanding and the matter is IN the universe. That is, even if there was no matter, the big bang would have been when the universe began and since then it has continued to expand.

 

[bzkoss236]

I was reading through this website. So if Geocentrism wasn’t contradictory to scripture, why would the Church care? It seems that some believe in Geocentrism. I am trying to form an a better understanding to see how they fit with my view of young earth Creationism, for which St. Maximilian Kolbe also agreed with, I think, and he developed the space ship in theory, before NASA did, or something like that, as far as i understand.

I am one of the rare? Catholic Creationists! But yes I have a lot to learn as science it my weakest subject. It just seems to fit best theologically though.
kolbecenter.org/ – good website

You are not a rarity. I think there are quite a few Catholics who believe in Young Earth theory. I myself do not, but all Catholics must be Creationists! And what I mean by that is that Catholics are to believe that this world/universe was created by God, and not random. And that God created life, including that of humans, and instilled in them an immortal soul. Now, whether human bodies came about through change over time from simple organisms (guided by God, of course, not random), or straight up from being modeled by dirt, Catholics are free to believe either. And while I believe in the Guided Evolutionary theory, I do not see it as contradicting scripture.

Thanks. I wonder if the Church was trying to make it an infallible teaching or doctrine of the Church. The Church looking back, does it sound like the Church is trying to say that those Church leaders were trying to make a doctrine, but they where incompetent and had no right?

Remember, the Church can only define doctrine on morals and faith, not science.