Why was Galileo persecuted?

[I_A]

Hmm… that article did not refute the notion that Galileo’s ideas are threatening to the dogma of transubstantiation.

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. Was it based on the superficial fear that their cosmology was wrong, or it assailed an integral pillar of the Catholic faith (i.e. transubstantiation). I am interested in arguments against the latter proposition.

I

As I recall it was Coppernicus, a Catholic priest who first advanced the concept of heliocentricism. In fact many years before the whole Gallielo thing the church modified the calendar adding the leap year based on the notion of the Earth orbiting the sun. (It is called the Gregorian calendar after a Pope Gregory.)

Due to the whole time scale I doubt it was becase of heliocentricism that Gallileo was put in house arrest, but I don’t know many details. I would much more readily buy that it was over something more important theologically like transubstatiation or politically like authority.

Edit: Glancing at a couple sites (Wikipedia) I might be wrong. Coppernicus’ theories might not have been taken seriously until many years after his death.

 

[mommyof4]

I could assure you that if you examine a piece of the so-called “Body of Christ” and ordinary unconsecrated communion waffer with 1H NMR spectroscopy or 13C NMR spectroscopy the control would have the same chemical shifts as the consecrated bread. Well, I can’t support this with peer-reviewed articles because I doubt any serious chemistry journal would publish such a absurd study.

Ignore that above, as I simply meant to say that there is no empirical difference between consecrated bread and unconsecrated bread (whether it could be discernable with our eyes or whether we have to use sopisticated chemical techniques to elucidated molecular structure.)

We never claimed that there would be any differences.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme,

Given that transubstantiation deals with the change in what Aristotle called a thing’s “substance” with no change in the thing’s “accidents,” it matters not one whit whether those accidents include atoms or some continuous form of matter. Atomism is totally irrelevant to the question.

I believe somebody else has pointed you to an article about why Galileo was persecuted by the Church. It had very little to do with his scientific theories and a whole lot to do with his publicly ridiculing the Pope.

• Liberian

Hmm… I thought that the article buffalo gave said that he was a scientist who was encroaching on the realm of theology. I wonder if it said he rediculed the Pope.

 

[Montalban]

In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a “prisoner”. As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, “One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition.” For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was… either tortured or blinded by his persecutors – though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind – or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

 

[Liberian]

Ahh … I didn’t follow the link but assumed that it led to the Catholic Answers article, “Twisting the Knife.” Galileo published a “Dialogue Concerning Two World Systems” (or some similar title) and put the Pope’s words into the mouth of Simplicio, one of the characters whom Galileo also makes look rather silly in the dialogue. The Pope took it personally.

• Liberian

 

[Montalban]

Ahh … I didn’t follow the link but assumed that it led to the Catholic Answers article, “Twisting the Knife.” Galileo published a “Dialogue Concerning Two World Systems” (or some similar title) and put the Pope’s words into the mouth of Simplicio, one of the characters whom Galileo also makes look rather silly in the dialogue. The Pope took it personally.

• Liberian

I’ve only a cursory knowledge of the matter, but it tells me that Galileo was punished for teaching per se, not for what he was teaching.

What he was teaching went against a great amount of scientific belief - and what he taught is ultimately wrong, anyway, because he simply substituted the sun, instead of the earth at the centre of the universe. (we now are told that this sun itself revolves around some galactic central point)

 

[Liberian]

Montalban,

What is commonly taught–that Galileo was persecuted for saying that the earth moves around the sun–is mistaken. For what it’s worth, I have read the the first scientists to confirm his findings were Jesuit astronomers in the Vatican. This is hardly what you would expect if the Church were persecuting him for teaching this new theory.

• Liberian

 

[mlchance]

What is commonly taught–that Galileo was persecuted for saying that the earth moves around the sun–is mistaken. For what it’s worth, I have read the the first scientists to confirm his findings were Jesuit astronomers in the Vatican. This is hardly what you would expect if the Church were persecuting him for teaching this new theory.

It is also worth noting most of Galileo’s detractors came not from within the Church, but from within the university system of the day. University professors had a vested interested in defending the old scientific orthodoxy against newer theories that challenged the reigning paradigm.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[apophasis]

A “substance” is not a solid, tangible, thing - that is the everyday sense of the word; not the sense it has in the theological discussion of the sacraments, such as the Eucharist. A substance is a thing that exists without having to be a property of a thing so as to exist - for example, hair is a substance, while redness is a property of that substance - there can be hair that is not red, and redness cannot exist except as a property of a thing. As we are talking about metaphysics, and not chemistry, the two don’t collide: talk about the redness of red hair & the distinction between the substance & the properties (“accidents”, in technical terminology), is not affected by the fact that colour exists in a spectrum - metaphysics & chemistry may consider the same things, but, under incommensurable aspects; which is why there is no collision

“Substance” is the crucial word - the appearances of bread and wine remain after the consecration (which is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit of the same Christ, working through His minister the human priest); so what is seen, tasted, touched, has all the appearances of bread & wine - including toxicity, if they are poisoned. What has changed, is the reality to which the appearances properly belong - that-which-was-bread - has ceased to exist, so only the properties of bread endure.

And it is the reality which is the thing that changes - not the properties. The substantia “stat sub”, “stands under” the accidents - they manifest what it is, that stands under them, which would otherwise be unknowable. The substance of bread can’t be discovered by chemical analysis, neither can the substance of anything: they can be known, but not directly - only by their effects, such as taste, colour, chemistry, electro-magnetism - for the objection is answered by noting that the phenomena on which the objection is based, are themselves further accidents of the Gifts. As the appearance of the bread remains, it is to be expected that its sub-atomic properties will do so - & those properties are not properties of substance as substance*; they are properties of the substance particularised & known as bread.

As for NMR spectroscopy - that deals with appearances; not with substance. The same applies to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle - quantum mechanics has no bearing on substance, so the Church is not concerned with it. The same applies to Anton van Leeuwenhoek - what the dogma is about, and what these men investigated, are not the same aspects of reality.

If any of this is wrong, someone please correct it.

substance as substance* - what is called “substantia prima”, undifferentiated unindividualised substance which has not received any form.

Hope that helps ##

This all reminds me of a time this summer when I was sitting in a nearby park enjoying the afternoon under the shade of a large tree. Two men occupied a bench near me, one a Fantasy enthusiast, the other Sci-fi. They were discussing how the back of a wardrobe could actually become the entrance into the world of Narnia. As their discussion progressed their terminology describing this transformation became more and more intricate and intellectually technical, both drawing from a large category of metaphysical and scientific terms. The one actually trying to outwit the other. Now in front of them on the grass played the six year old daughter of one of the men who suddenly looked up and said, “But daddy, Narnia doesn’t really exist.”

OK, so the above scenario didn’t really take place either - but you get the idea. Mere technical terminology can never create reality.

And Galileo was summoned before the Catholic Inquisition, forced to sign a statement abjectly recanting his provable, scientific views, and shamefully subjected to the indignity of house arrest for the rest of his life, simply because his objective views opposed subjective, church “tradition.”

 

[mlchance]

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

Galileo’s explanations for how heliocentrism worked were not provable at the time of his censure. In fact, we now know that his particular cosmological scheme was largely wrong except in the most general terms (i.e., that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

Galileo’s explanations for how heliocentrism worked were not provable at the time of his censure. In fact, we now know that his particular cosmological scheme was largely wrong except in the most general terms (i.e., that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around).

– Mark L. Chance.

You mean “testable”, not “provable” right?

 

[mlchance]

You mean “testable”, not “provable” right?

I was using the terminology used by the poster who said Galileo was forced to “recanting his provable, scientific views…” Again, RIF.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[apophasis]

Galileo’s explanations for how heliocentrism worked were not provable at the time of his censure. In fact, we now know that his particular cosmological scheme was largely wrong except in the most general terms (i.e., that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around).

– Mark L. Chance.

But you miss, or wilfully avoid, the point completely. He wasn’t brought before the Inquisition and forced to recant his scientific views because of any lack of proof. That was not even the issue.

 

[ribozyme]

But you miss, or wilfully avoid, the point completely. He wasn’t brought before the Inquisition and forced to recant his scientific views because of any lack of proof. That was not even the issue.

I have not read on the Galileo’s persecution much… but it seems to me that he has been persecuted for encroaching on the realm of theology, not his views on astromony. But it is interesting that he had to sign a statement recanting his scientific views, not his metaphysical views only. Why did the Church, who is currently concerned with faith and morals, want to influence his scientific views. Atomism is a scientific view, but it did not have as much support then, as it has now.

 

[mlchance]

But you miss, or wilfully avoid, the point completely. He wasn’t brought before the Inquisition and forced to recant his scientific views because of any lack of proof. That was not even the issue.

It was most certainly part of the issue. Galileo was saying that certain things were true that he had no way of demonstrating. Part of what he was saying did include his faulty cosmological model, which he insisted was accurate.

The Church told him to not teach as true what he couldn’t demonstrate as true. He chose to do otherwise, and, in the process, insulted a significant number of politically powerful men.

One can certainly argue the Church’s actions were inappropriate (at least), but Galileo was no innocent victim.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[corvidae]

also, atomism is a metaphysical issue

It is a philosophy that basdically says everything happens because of unmeasurable and unseeable outside forces.

The theory of atomism is that everything is minute particles falling through a vaccume and that something causes some to suddenly turn and collide.
That is all I remember from philosophy of nature class.

But that means that we should not equate atomism with the belief in atoms. There is a difference.

A lone Raven

 

[ribozyme]

also, atomism is a metaphysical issue

It is a philosophy that basdically says everything happens because of unmeasurable and unseeable outside forces.

The theory of atomism is that everything is minute particles falling through a vaccume and that something causes some to suddenly turn and collide.
That is all I remember from philosophy of nature class.

But that means that we should not equate atomism with the belief in atoms. There is a difference.

A lone Raven

Maybe when atomism was first proposed by Democritus, when it could not be tested, it could be considered metaphysical. But of course, now atomic theory is congruent with all of the observations from physics and chemistry, and it is the best way to explain the phenomenon of the natural world.

Well, regarding minute particles and vacuums, most of an atom is empty space.
wikipedia on "atom":

For any atom, one might use the radius at which the electrons of the valence shell are most likely to be found. As an example, the size of a hydrogen atom is estimated to be approximately 1.06×10-10 m (twice the Bohr radius). Compare this to the size of the proton (the only particle in the nucleus of the hydrogen atom), which is approximately 10-15 m. So the ratio of the size of the hydrogen atom to its nucleus is about 100,000:1. If an atom were the size of a stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a marble. Nearly all the mass of an atom is in its nucleus, yet almost all the space in an atom is occupied by its electrons.

 

[Ghosty]

Maybe when atomism was first proposed by Democritus, when it could not be tested, it could be considered metaphysical. But of course, now atomic theory is congruent with all of the observations from physics and chemistry, and it is the best way to explain the phenomenon of the natural world.

Well, regarding minute particles and vacuums, most of an atom is empty space.

Right, but regardless the belief in and study of physical atoms is not related to the philosophy of atomism. They come from the same root word, but they are not about the same thing. If Galileo advocated atomism and was opposed for it, it wasn’t the belief in atoms per se that was opposed, as atoms have all of nothing to do with any Catholic doctrine, or even optional theology.

In fact, the study of atoms in the are of physics actually supports the Catholic understanding of the universe, rather than the atomistic one. This is because we know through study that the function of atoms is determined by their forms. Atomism would say that forms are ultimately irrelevant, or even non-existant in and of themselves (being mere phantasms of the mind seeing a pile of atoms arranged in a certain order). We know, however, that the form in which the parts of an atom take, and the form that atoms themselves take when coming together (molecules), changes their entire function in the larger object, and change the properties of that object.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This all reminds me of a time this summer when I was sitting in a nearby park enjoying the afternoon under the shade of a large tree. Two men occupied a bench near me, one a Fantasy enthusiast, the other Sci-fi. They were discussing how the back of a wardrobe could actually become the entrance into the world of Narnia. As their discussion progressed their terminology describing this transformation became more and more intricate and intellectually technical, both drawing from a large category of metaphysical and scientific terms. The one actually trying to outwit the other. Now in front of them on the grass played the six year old daughter of one of the men who suddenly looked up and said, “But daddy, Narnia doesn’t really exist.”

OK, so the above scenario didn’t really take place either - but you get the idea. Mere technical terminology can never create reality.

Of course not - but that’s irrelevant to the issue of transubstantiation. Think us wrong or mad or whatever by all means - but for us, transubstantiation is exceedingly real: far more so than the visible world. But then, believing in it is part of our “universe-view”; in which it is coherent. We can’t pretend to be atheists or agnostics, because we are not - Christianity is a divinely-revealed way of faith: not a classical philosophy with theistic icing. ​

And Galileo was summoned before the Catholic Inquisition, forced to sign a statement abjectly recanting his provable, scientific views, and shamefully subjected to the indignity of house arrest for the rest of his life, simply because his objective views opposed subjective, church “tradition.”

ribozyme wanted a comment or two on his quotation from Dawkins. So I did what I could to satisfy him ​

The difference between the sub-created secondary reality of Narnia (which is after all well worth discussing - the primary reality of what is inaccurately referred to as the “real world” is not the only one worth discussing, by a long way) & the Mass, is enormous: the Mass gives us access to Reality, which is why transubstantiation is important. It’s not a sub-created reality, which that of Narnia (for instance) is.

What do critics of Catholicism (or of any other Christianity for that matter) want ? An explanation from Christians of why they believe what they believe - or the absence of an explanation ? We can’t supply both: people have to decide whether they are going to criticise Christians for being too rational, or for not being rational enough - they can’t have it both ways. AFAIC, if people want an explanation of something, & if it can be given, they are entitled to it. Unless they’ve come only to mock - but ribozyme doesn’t sound as if he’s mocking. So he gets a reply ##

 

[HailMary]

The Article titled, The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua, is really good and can be found at catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp