Why was Galileo persecuted?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think that the more serious issue that Dawkins in an oblique way is trying to get at is the implications of transubstantiation for human knowledge. If the accidents of a thing do not always conform to its substance, then it seems that the reliability of the of senses and all empirical knowledge could be brought into question. The substance along with the accidents are what allow me to apprehend the computer screen that sits in front of me. I have resolved this issue regarding transubstantiation to my own satisfaction, but am wondering what some of you hardcore Thomists have to say.

I hadn’t thought of Dawkins’ words like that - TY.​

I don’t see that there are any, not in the way that there are with Kant’s denial of the trustworthiness of sense knowledge (I hope I got that right).

I think there are two issues here:

• the way in which the intellect works to give us our perceptions
• and transubstantiation itself.
  At least as regards transubstantiation, ISTM there would be problem if it happened out of the blue - but it doesn’t. It is an element in a larger action, that of the celebration of the Eucharist as a whole: there’s no more reason to think it will happen out of the blue than there is to think that a castle will build itself in a child’s nursery or that “The Simpsons” are going to invade the White House.

Transubstantiation is not perceptible - but it is an element in something that is. When Jesus said “This is my body”, he was not giving a speech in Zulu at a political rally, or singing a lullaby to a fractious child - He was addressing His disciples. What he said, had meaning, & very specific meaning. And transubstantiation is equally specific - it’s not (say) a self-sustaining conjuring trick that is as likely to befall an old sock or an 19th-century doll as any thing else: it is the result of a considered & intended human action which is taken up into the activity of God for a very specific purpose. Priests are not conjurers or magicians - they are human beings, who have been called upon to enact a part in a sacred action which they could of themselves not enact at all.

It is only in the Eucharistic assembly that this action has any meaning or purpose, because of the importance of the priest’s intention - children are not going to be converted into cauliflowers, or computers into racing-cars, or socks into steam-ships; that implies a chaotic universe, & transubstantiation is a unique change; it’s not the sort of change of which there are ten a penny in daily life. It is an exemplary type of change - one which provides a pattern for other entities; such as the conversion of human beings. But that is a conversion of the personality, not of the visible & bodily constitution of the human person. People are not converted any old how, but by the action of God - just as happens in transubstantiation. Neither conversion is possible without omnipotent grace & power.

It would help if Dawkins understood what the CC teaches. Unless he is a validly ordained priest with the intention of doing what the Church does, using valid matter & a valid sacramental form, he is not going to be able to transubstantiate anything. There is as much reason for him to worry that transubstantiation will occur here, there and everywhere, as there is for him to worry that he may be mistaken for Xena the Warrior Princess - rather less, in fact.

BTW - the Thomist analysis is not itself part of Catholic teaching: Paul VI uses the phrase “a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation”. It is the conversion that is a dogma, but not the Aristotelian analysis of it. That has been very serviceable, but it’s a metaphysical account of one feature of the mystery of the Eucharist; it is not the entirety of that mystery. And that’s partly why the definition by the Fathers of the Council of Trent does not use the word “accidents” at all, but the word “species”. The “sacramental species” are the appearances of the Eucharistic Gifts, that were formerly bread & wine, that remain after the consecration

What was your resolution BTW ? ##

 

[Ghosty]

At least as regards transubstantiation, ISTM there would be problem if it happened out of the blue - but it doesn’t. It is an element in a larger action, that of the celebration of the Eucharist as a whole: there’s no more reason to think it will happen out of the blue than there is to think that a castle will build itself in a child’s nursery or that “The Simpsons” are going to invade the White House.

I think this is a key point. Hardcore “Thomists” like myself make it a point constantly that the Eucharist is very unique and special, not at all the basis of our normal laws of perception. It is special, in a certain sense, precisely because it violates our natural rules of perception.

Incidently, the Thomistic understanding of transubstantiation actually does deal with the limits of substance and accidents. For example, since we usually do know a substance by its accidents, the Thomist understanding of transubstantiation even goes so far as to say that when the accidents of bread are gone, the substance of Christ is gone because Christ has replaced the substance of bread so completely that the accidents of bread and wine actually inhere directly to the substance of Christ. Therefore when the accidents of wine are so diluted as to make it functionally indistinguishable from water, the substance of Christ is no longer present (this is why the cloths used to wipe up the Eucharistic Blood are cleaned the way they are).

So the premise of transubstantiation actually goes to great lengths to preserve the “normal” operations of things, especially as regards substance and accidents. In simple terms we can just say that bread doesn’t “become” Christ, but rather Christ with the accidents of bread replaces the bread on the altar completely. No deception of the senses is occuring in this case, and it’s held up as an entirely unique situation at any rate, known only because of Divine Revelation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[HailMary]

The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua

From Wil Milan’s article “Twisting the Knife” (November/December 1999), one may be led to conclude that Pope Urban VIII excommunicated Galileo because Galileo incurred the wrath of the Church by ridiculing the Pope in his Dialogue. Unfortunately, this overlooks the crux of the matter.

The Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Galileo in 1616, under Pope Paul V, and again in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII. Contrary to modern belief, the excommunication was unrelated to Galileo’s theory that the earth moved around the sun, a discovery made in 1543 by a Catholic priest from Poland named Copernicus. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa held this same view, and neither he nor Fr. Copernicus encountered any opposition from the Holy See. The Holy See does not comment on theories of science unless they are presented as scientific truths that contradict revealed truth, in which case these scientific theories become theological pronouncements.

Mr. Milan writes, “After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal [Robert] Bellarmine . . . concluded that Galileo did not contradict Scripture.” This assertion must be qualified by the following passage from letter the Cardinal wrote to a Mr. Foscarini, a close friend of Galileo: “There would be no objection on the part of the Congregation to putting forward the system of Copernicus as the best explanation of the celestial phenomena provided no reference was made to the apparent conflict with the Bible” (emphasis added).

The Congregation took issue not with the movement of the celestial bodies around the sun but with Galileo’s statement that the sun did not move. Why is that? The key is in the book of Joshua: “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day” (Josh. 10:12–14, emphasis added).

If the sun does not move, as Galileo affirmed, how could the Lord have commanded it to stand still? The Church had not made an infallible pronouncement on the proper interpretation of these verses. Galileo, on the other hand, was making one: The sun does not move, meaning either Scripture is in error or the Church has to infallibly declare that the meaning of these verses is not literal.

The Church, to protect the faithful and to call Galileo to repentance, issued her condemnation. Pope John Paul II has removed the bull of excommunication against Galileo in part because the astronomer’s teaching no longer constitutes a danger to the faithful (just as Paul’s stern warning against circumcision in Galatians 5:2–4 was binding for his time but is not binding today).

The irony is that, factually, the seventeenth-century Church was on the side of science, which has shown that the sun does move and is not fixed, as Galileo would have had it.

Naji Mouawad
San Marcos, California

source: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

So the premise of transubstantiation actually goes to great lengths to preserve the “normal” operations of things, especially as regards substance and accidents. In simple terms we can just say that bread doesn’t “become” Christ, but rather Christ with the accidents of bread replaces the bread on the altar completely. No deception of the senses is occuring in this case, and it’s held up as an entirely unique situation at any rate, known only because of Divine Revelation.

If we can be sure that any words in the gospels go right back to Jesus, “this is my body” are those.
Jesus presumably knew exactly what He meant by this, but we don’t. “Transubstantiation” is just a fancy word for “this is”.

The children of Israel ate manna in the wilderness. Later King david’s men ate the bread of the presence in the temple. The forbidden fruit was, in Jewish tradition, a grape; the apple tradition is European. There are many allusions. But ultimately I think we’ve got to say that the teacher has run ahead of his class.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Modern scientists look to Galileo as the author of the Scientific Revolution; when, in fact, they should be looking to the Church. The Church was the main promoter of reason in Tradition which is why many Catholic theologians looked to the classical Greek philosophers to try and help explain their faith. It was the Church that promoted reason and was trying to protect it in the “persecution” of Galileo. The Catholic Church is responsible for most of western civilization including unviersities where Galileo conducted his research. At the time, Galileo’s research was just that, research and personal opinion. There was no developed scientific method, and the closest thing that could be called the scientific method was propagated by Catholics such as Francis of Assis, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ribozyme:

I did not post this thread to say the church was unjust in their treatment of Galileo, but rather question the motives behind their treatment.

There was a movement at the time toward literal interpretation of the Bible. That movement was later dismantled, but at the time it provided fertile ground to oppose Galileo’s hypothesis.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

At the time also Galileo’s hypothesis was just that: a hypothesis. He attempted to prove this thoughts by means of wave theory, but it was not until 200 years later that his thoughts were proven by means of paralax.

By the way, his thoughts were actually Copernicus’s thoughts.

ribozyme:

Was it based on the superficial fear that their cosmology was wrong,

In part among sectors of the Church, but not by the ‘Church’ Herself.

ribozyme:

or it assailed an integral pillar of the Catholic faith (i.e. transubstantiation).

No. It assailed an integral pillar of Catholicism which was that truth cannot contradict truth. Galileo did not put forth his thoughts as a hypothesis. He put forth his thoughts as ‘truth’ – even though he could not succeed in proving that ‘truth’. That is what got him into trouble.

ribozyme:

I am interested in arguments against the latter proposition.

No doubt. Perhaps if you set out your argument for the latter position it might be easier for us to direct you to the relevant sources.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…And Galileo was summoned before the Catholic Inquisition, forced to sign a statement abjectly recanting his provable, scientific views…

Actually he could not prove his views. They were not proven until 200 years later. Moreover he did not present his views as merely scientific but as theological. Moreover rather than just stating his hypothesis, he resorted to ad hominem attacks against the Pope. Do the math.

 

[Ghosty]

If we can be sure that any words in the gospels go right back to Jesus, “this is my body” are those.
Jesus presumably knew exactly what He meant by this, but we don’t. “Transubstantiation” is just a fancy word for “this is”.

The children of Israel ate manna in the wilderness. Later King david’s men ate the bread of the presence in the temple. The forbidden fruit was, in Jewish tradition, a grape; the apple tradition is European. There are many allusions. But ultimately I think we’ve got to say that the teacher has run ahead of his class.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your post in relation to mine (which was made some time ago). Whatcha getting at, Malcom?

God bless!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m afraid I don’t understand your post in relation to mine (which was made some time ago). Whatcha getting at, Malcom?

God bless!

You offered a very philosophically sophisticated explanation of transubstantiation. I was a disagreeing with it, not by trying to tackle the philosophy head on, but by trying to show how that kind of explanation isn’t really in harmony with the dynamic of the gospels. The words are there, we can be pretty sure that the historical Jesus actually said them or a close paraphrase, but we don’t know what they mean. However we know that they are not just gibberish because we can see allusions to them spread through the Scriptures.

 

[Ghosty]

You offered a very philosophically sophisticated explanation of transubstantiation. I was a disagreeing with it, not by trying to tackle the philosophy head on, but by trying to show how that kind of explanation isn’t really in harmony with the dynamic of the gospels. The words are there, we can be pretty sure that the historical Jesus actually said them or a close paraphrase, but we don’t know what they mean. However we know that they are not just gibberish because we can see allusions to them spread through the Scriptures.

Ahhh, fair enough. Thanks for the explaination.

Remember, the term transubstantiation is simply a philosophical tool to explain that the reality of Christ is there, while the accidents of bread and wine remain. We know that this is a fact, even if we don’t believe in the philosophical framework used to articulate it, because the Eucharist REALLY IS the fullness of Christ (this is Dogma), and that it appears to be common bread and wine (this is observable fact).

We simply can’t water down the meaning of “this is my Body”, nor can we deny that the Eucharist commonly doesn’t LOOK like “a body”. Transubstantiation is simply the sophisticated Aristotilean statement of these two points. It’s not “in harmony” with the dynamic of the Gospels in the same way that a scientific description of gravity is not in harmony with the dynamic of the Gospels; the language used beside the point, and is updated to reflect the understanding of later people.

Incidently, my main point was simply to counter Dawkin’s accusation that such a difference between substances and accidents in the Eucharist calls into question all of human experience, not to explain the Eucharist in absolute terms. I wouldn’t use philosophical transubstantiation to explain such a profound mystery, unless I was talking to people who understood things in an Aristotilean way.

Peace and God bless!