Was Galileo forced to recant or else ...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodHeals
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Another way of stating this is that the Big Bang happened EVERYWHERE. Yes, the origin was a single point, but that single point was everywhere and contained the entire created universe. It didn’t explode into empty space, the single point simply got bigger.
 
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?
The quote from scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
has some questionable implications in regard to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on Earth, which in my humble opinion, contribute to the heated discussions (that get threads closed, etc.) over the scientific theory of geocentrism.

As far as I know, there are only two CAF posters who are experts on Church protocol. The current one is DavidPalm. Going back to old geocentric threads, he has posted extensively on what really happens when Catholic doctrines are declared.
However, a bit of common sense can generally address the general confusion surrounding general Catholic Church protocol.

I do not mean to be disrespectful. Using the word Church five times above without distinguishing the two different meanings or implications of the word Church is part of the confusion you are experiencing.

Would it be possible for you to get back to me as to how you view the Catholic Church members and its organization?
 
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.

Remember, the Church can only define doctrine on morals and faith, not science.
Guided Evolutionary theory = theistic evolution?
 
I do not mean to be disrespectful. Using the word Church five times above without distinguishing the two different meanings or implications of the word Church is part of the confusion you are experiencing.

Would it be possible for you to get back to me as to how you view the Catholic Church members and its organization?
I am not sure what you meant, and I am not sure how to get across my point… this is all new stuff to me.
 
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.
He was tonsured clerk, without question; he may have been an ordained acolyte. He was also enrolled in a jesuit monastery for his education, and forcibly withdrawn by his father at 4 years - because he informed his father of his intent to remain a jesuit!

The surest proof of this is that he was tried in a church court - laymen were not tried so for anything less than heresy or schism.

Minor orders are not used in the Roman Church since 1965 or so, and exactly which were in use at a given point has varied over time.

It was not uncommon for first tonsure to be at age 8… which is the point where one ceases to be a layman, and becomes a “clerk” or “minor cleric”. Porter, Acolyte, Lector, and Exorcist are the standard minor orders, tho at some times, Cantor, Thurifer, and candlebearer have been used. (Candlebearer is first tonsure for the Byzantine Rite, typically.) In the eastern churches, subdeacons are also minor clerics.

One becomes a cleric or “major cleric” at ordination to subdeacon in the Roman Church, deacon in the eastern churches in union.
 
The surest proof of this is that he was tried in a church court - laymen were not tried so for anything less than heresy or schism.
So a laymen scientist pushing for heliocentrism wouldn’t have been tried in court?

Minor orders are not used in the Roman Church since 1965 or so, and exactly which were in use at a given point has varied over time.
You mean they started in 1965 until now?

Exorcist are the standard minor orders
Not sure how someone not a Priest could perform an Exorcism?!?

One becomes a cleric or “major cleric” at ordination to subdeacon in the Roman Church, deacon in the eastern churches in union.
Never heard of a subdeacon!! Thanks for sharing these terms.
 
Would it be possible for you to get back to me as to how you view the Catholic Church members and its organization?
I am not sure what you mean the difference is between the use of the two different uses of the word Church.

I know Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Deacon… and that the last three are ordained positions. The others two, I think are elected positions. I never really understand all the acylote, subdeacon, excorist, cleric, etc. I thought a person needed to be a Priest to be an Exorcist?
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. - newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
– not sure what that meant.
 
I am not sure what you meant, and I am not sure how to get across my point… this is all new stuff to me.
My apology, but a family situation popped up and I was distracted. Everything is fine at the moment.

Here is post 35.

"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? "

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Recently, St. Paul’s teaching on the Mystical Body was one of the readings. I do not remember the exact verses, but please take a look at 1Corinthians 12: 12- 31. Then read 1 Corinthians 2: 16 “For ‘who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” To understand how the Church has the mind of Christ, read about the role of the Holy Spirit in chapter 14, Gospel of John. “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”

These Scripture references demonstrate two views of the Church. The primary view is that the Church is responsible for carrying out the teachings of Christ and for administering the seven Sacraments. The Church gives us the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Church defines Divine Revelation in formal doctrines. The Church cares for the poor. This list is endless. The few examples here demonstrate the Church as an organization, as the Mystical Body of Christ.

1Corinthians 12: 27 “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.” In this verse, as in others, St. Paul recognizes the members as individuals. When it comes to scientific theories such as geocentrism, every individual, including high-ranking clergy, individually has the right to free speech. The question is --Does free speech in itself have the power to form Catholic doctrines?

Chapter six, Gospel of John has the example of individuals freely speaking in response to Jesus’ words. Many listeners “murmured” finding it hard to believe Jesus. Consequently, they walked away. Returning to their former way of life, they no longer accompanied Jesus. Simon Peter also freely spoke. John 6: 68 “Simon Peter answered Him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. …”
We can hear in Peter’s response the future authority of the “apostles” when it comes to Divine Revelation expressed in the words of Jesus, True God and True Man. As time progressed, the authority of the Popes and the Bishops was recognized as authentic under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The “we” in Peter’s question “to whom shall we go?” became the gathering of Church leaders in major Church Councils. The Promised Advocate “reminded” these Councils of Divine Revelation.
For the names of these Councils and their contribution to the universal Catechism, use the “Index of Citations” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 689, following paragraph 2865.

Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp it full significance over the course of the centuries." (CCC 66) This is where individual Church members have a dual role. For example, high-ranking Church members may see a need for a more explicit understanding of a point from Divine Revelation. Because of free speech, they can freely promote it in various ways. However, the way that a particular proposal involving faith or morals can become an actual doctrine is that it is defined by a major Ecumenical Church Council. There is also a provision that a Pope can declare a doctrine under strict circumstances.

Normally, before a doctrine is defined by either a Council or by the Pope, there are long periods of time, even years, of studying Scripture, writings of the Early Church Fathers, contributions of theologians, liturgical practices, writings of the Church Doctors, and writings of Saints who are none of the above. The Council of Trent took place during 1545-1563. This is just the beginning of Church protocol for defining a doctrine. The rest of the protocol involves how a Council is conducted.
 
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.
Post 50 is my humble attempt at putting “Church doctrines” in Scripture references which pertain to the Mystical Body of Christ. Hopefully that will be a start to determining the difference between a local trial of the individual Galileo and what it takes to define a Catholic doctrine which is to be accepted by Catholics.

At any time, high-ranking individuals, using free speech, could bring Galileo to a local trial for any reason. Individuals of the Mystical Body of Christ can choose wrongly. However, when individuals of the Mystical Body of Christ meet together in a proper manner, such as an appropriate Church Council, they can, with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, discern Divine Revelation.

Heliocentricity is a scientific theory and therefore not in the domain of the Catholic Church. Regarding the planets and the sun, the Catholic doctrine is Genesis 1: 1. This is stated in the beginning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
40.png
GodHeals:
Note: when you put your response inside the quote, it makes it much harder to respond. It also makes it harder to notice that you’ve asked anything.

A layman would not have been tried by the church. Galileo was.

Galileo wasn’t tried for just heresy. He was tried for disobedience. Laymen are not subject to obedience in the same way, and while they can be excommunicated for it, they can’t be punished by confinement for simple disobedience.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI discontinued the use of Minor Orders within the Roman Church (but not the other 20-something churches in Union with Rome). Since 1965, Roman Canon Law recognizes two legal states: Cleric and Layman, with Religious being a modifier to either.

Before 1965, Roman Canon Law recognized 4 legal states Religious Clergy (also called Regular Clerics), Secular Clergy (Clerics Secular), Clerks (Minor Clerics, Canons) and Religious (other than Regular Clerics), and laymen. Each of these groups has different rights under canon law, and different duties. And differences in who may try them.

Throughout most of pre-19th C Europe, clerks and clerics were immune to civil law. Many places had clerks immune into the 19th C, and many had clergy immune well into the 20th.

As for the minor order of Exorcist - it was usually the last minor order given before the subdeaconate. It is the point where one is given power by the church over demons, to cast them out. Every priest has that power, but so does every deacon. The modern ordinations include the power of exorcism as part of these orders. But it could be conferred separately, and often was. Note also, that the exorcism to be used was normally the minor exorcism of those studying to receive the sacraments of initiation. Major exorcism (the forcible removal of demons from a person possessed) has almost always been a clerical function, tho’ the senior assistants would be ordained exorcists.

In many cases, it was conferred just prior to the subdeaconate, as in hours or minutes before.

The Roman ordinations and their type, from least to greatest:* 1st Tonsure - minor (abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965)
  • Porter - minor (abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965 - vestigial since the 900’s in the Roman Rite)
  • Lector - minor - replaced by instituted order in 1965
  • Acolyte - minor - replaced by instituted order in 1965
  • Thurifer - minor (not common since 1100 - duties devolved upon the acolyte)(technically abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965)
  • Cantor - minor (not common since 1400, and never ubiquitous. When not preset, devolves upon the lector) (technically abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965)
  • Exorcist - minor (abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965)
  • Subdeacon - special (abolished by Pp.Paul VI in 1965) - should have been minor, but was treated as a major order, despite the ritual being that of a minor order.
  • Deacon - major
  • Priest - major
  • Bishop - major
Major orders are of biblical institution, and conferred by the ordaining bishop placing his hands upon the head of the ordained, then vesting.
Minor orders are not explicitly mentioned in the bible, tho’ lector, cantor, and acolyte are of jewish heritage. They are conferred by a hands-off blessing, and vesting, and then being handed the tools of their order.

Certain traditionalist religious communities are permitted to continue to use minor orders, as are the eastern churches in union with Rome. The FSSP and ICRSS ordain men to minor orders still. (The SSPX do so, but technically do not have permission.) Certain dominican priories still ordain minor orders. All the Eastern Churches in Union have minor orders, tho’ the extent to which they are used varies.

The Instituted Orders of Lector and Acolyte are equivalent to the minor orders, and start in 1965. They have the same duties as minor orders, but are still canonically laymen. And all Catholic Deacons are required to have held both for at least one year prior to ordination.
 
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. - newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

– not sure what that meant.
The first sentence refers back to the issue of the Pope declaring geocentrism. As the article pointed out, the Pope was not officially declaring a duly defined doctrine of any sort because he did not meet the specific qualifications of a doctrine “ex cathedra” which refers to the chair of Peter, that is, the authority of a pope.

Going back to post 50, there is the obvious difference between a major Ecumenical Church Council and the Congregation of the Index which was a committee or commission to determine any possibility of heresy in a printed book or paper. Regarding any kind of a tribunal, again, obviously, this is not a major ecumenical Church Council.

Somewhere in the past, Catholic education lost sight of the difference between an individual speaking on his own behalf and speaking on behalf of God.:o
 
Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp it full significance over the course of the centuries." (CCC 66)
Is Divine Revelation the same as Public Revelation?

Can you please explain to my the order, i think i read somewhere, of the levels of teaching? Like first comes the Entire Word of God, then Catechism, then … , then …, and which are dogma and doctrine. Thank you for helping me to understand and for sharing everything you did in this past posting.
 
Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp it full significance over the course of the centuries." (CCC 66)
Is Divine Revelation the same as Public Revelation?
Can you please explain to my the order, i think i read somewhere, of the levels of teaching? Like first comes the Entire Word of God, then Catechism, then … , then …, and which are dogma and doctrine. Thank you for helping me to understand and for sharing everything you did in this past posting.
I remember something about an order of teaching, but I have no clue as to what that was. Some people see a difference between dogma and doctrine, but I do not see much difference between them. What I do see as an important difference is how doctrines are declared in comparison with other documents such as encyclicals and commission reports and so on.

To better understand the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, my suggestion is to read the two documents by John Paul II at the front of the book. The footnotes to CCC paragraphs include specific information about the source of information within a paragraph. Also read CCC 18-22 for practical directions for the Catechism especially why there is smaller print in some places.

The first duly declared doctrines are in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For me, personally, there are basic obvious doctrines such as God exists or Jesus Christ is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist. From the basic doctrines, other doctrines follow logically.

For example, look up Transubstantiation in the Catechism’s Index and the Glossary. One of the references is CCC 1376 which begins with “The Council of Trent…” Here is the basic doctrine. Now follow the other CCC references, including the ones in the margins. Sometime back, I highlighted the words “most especially”, “the whole Christ”, “substantial presence”, Christ becomes present in this sacrament" found in CCC 1373-1375 plus 1376. All of these are part of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
And there are more explanations according to the Index.

About your question – Is Divine Revelation the same as Public Revelation?

Public Revelation refers to the time frame of Divine Revelation. “Private revelation” refers to the period, including current period, following Public Revelation. CCC 50-67 provides better information.
 
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.
The acclaimed Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived about 300 years before Galileo, commented on Aristotle’s astronomy which made the sun turn around the motionless earth as follows:
These opinions are admissible, since they account for the appearances. However, other explanations, equally good, are also possible.
It is true that in matters of reason that do not contradict the faith the Church has always prudently been neutral. In fact - as we have been trying to explain - Galileo was not persecuted for his loosely heliocentric beliefs.
 
Galileo wasn’t tried for just heresy. He was tried for disobedience. Laymen are not subject to obedience in the same way, and while they can be excommunicated for it, they can’t be punished by confinement for simple disobedience.
Could the Church ever force a disobedient clergy member to house arrest apart from civil law, if the person appeals to civil law? It is probably differed now than back then when it seems there is more? freedom (less Catholic Church authority over the flock?) to choose sin and live in disobedience.

What is a Ruthenianized Roman? A term you made up for Western Slavic Russian Romans?

Did you write all of that or copy and paste? It seems it was well thought out. Thank you again!
Brian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top