Also see this site: Condemnation of Galileo It’s clear that geocentrism was part of official RCC doctrine, but why was it part of doctrine in the first place?
The accounts I’ve read state that the Church actively taught that Earth was at the center of the universe since it was the home of humanity; as human beings were the most important part of God’s Creation, Earth was the centerpiece.
Did the Catholic Church hold this as doctrine, or not?
Additional:
tomndebb has claimed the following:
Galileo was certainly incorrect about the exact shape of orbits and the cause of tides, but it’s not true that the moons of Jupiter never came up. They were an important part of Galileo’s simplicity argument: since smaller objects seem to orbit much larger ones, it makes much more sense to consider Earth and the other planets to revolve around the tremendously large Sun than the other way around.
I seem to remember that it relates to a passage in the Bible (Old Testament) in which God made the Sun “stand still in the heavens” temporarily as, one would presume, a demonstration of his power. In order for this to happen, the sun would normally have to be in motion. One of our resident religious scholars can correct me on the details of that bibilcal passage, but I think I got the gist correct.
But it may just be the church was enforcing it’s authority and didn’t want upstarts usurping its power.
My slight hijack noting that the Galileo affair was not quite the “evil church vs. good noble scientist” matter it is usually painted largely took over the thread. At the request of a mod, this new thread was opened.
But the Church didn’t dispute calculations of pi because there’s a section of the Bible that requires pi to be equal to three. Why did it react so strongly to the possibility that the Earth might not be the center?
Oh, and we should keep the following advice (from a site discussing Galileo and the Inquisition) in mind:
I can say in all honesty that the vast majority of Catholic sites discussing the Inquisition and Galileo can easily be described as “apologetic and justificatory”.
There’s a fair amount of distance between warning the reader to be wary of bias, and actually demonstrating that a particular source is incorrect in some material fashion.
The short (and accurate) answer is that it has never been part of doctrine, despite your persistent claims.
The statements of the Holy Office at the time of Galileo’s first trial were the personal opinions of the judges that had no basis in church teachings beyond their personal belief.
Because it was, despite your unfounded claims, not reacting to Galileo’s science, but to his personality. Not a shining example of eccesiastical jurisprudence, but hardly an attack on science.
Then, for heaven’s sake, provide these “accounts” that you always cite but never produce. This whole discussion is based on you continuing to assert a falsehood: that the Catholic Church ever taught as doctrine that the earth was the center of all things, thereby giving primacy to humanity.*
You have tried to excuse Protestant condemnation of heliocentrism (which I have documented in the other thread) because you claim that they did not say the same thing, but you have failed to produce any evidence regarding your claims about the Catholic church. This is beginning to look like simply another case of mindless Catholic bashing. There are lots of points on which the RCC can be condemned (including the treatment of Galileo), but your false claim that it was a deliberate assault on science, based on official doctrine is wrong–and your repeated failure to provide evidence indicates that it is deliberately wrong.
There are philosophical and theological explorations of the idea scattered around the last 2,000 years. The point is that those explorations, like the statements of the Holy Office at the trial of Galileo, are not doctrine. Where is the doctrine? Cardinal Bellarmine expressly told Galileo that if he had proof, then the chuirch would have to reconsider the explanations of certain passages of Scripture. He did not say that the church would have to change doctrine. And, of course, Galileo never provided the proof that Bellarmine sought.
Probably because iterating the correct value of pi was not used at any particular time in a context of a direct challenge to the Church’s teaching authority. Anyway the RCC has never been sola scriptura literalist, and not only accepts that much of the Bible is allegorical and subject to interpretation, but that it includes trivial details (such as the 30-cubit washbasin) that are not crucial to doctrine or morals.
** As has been discussed in the previous thread, Galileo was accused of trying to change Catholic doctrine.
If Catholicism didn’t include geocentrism in its doctrine, how could Galileo have changed it?
The previously-linked-to condemnation of Galileo itself states that Galileo’s claims were contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Nice try, tomndebb. Care to try again?
** On the contrary, that’s exactly what it way.
The phases of Venus were more than enough to show that it revolved around the sun, not the Earth. The scientific concept of parsimony demands that we find the simplest explanation for our observations. Brahe’s geocentric model isn’t simpler than the heliocentric – it contains the completely ad hoc proposition that the Earth is somehow different from the rest of the heavenly bodies. It’s much more sensible to conclude that small objects orbit around large ones – that places the sun at the center of the solar system and the known universe.
** I’ll see if I can find a good one. There’s no question that it taught that the Earth was the center of all things… the problem is with the “primacy to humanity” part.
** It was a direct assault on science. Science recognizes only one authority – the universe it studies. The Church placed religious tradition and scripture over observation. This philosophy is incompatible with science.
It was clearly Catholic doctrine that the geocentric model was correct, but why was it RCC doctrine? Biblical literalism was never as strong with Catholicism as it was with Protestantism, and the few instances in scripture that seem to describe the Sun going around the Earth can easily be interpreted as a primitive understanding (which the Church now does). So why did the Church feel so strongly about the idea?
I’m sure the idea that humanity was the most important thing in Creation had nothing to do with it… :rolleyes:
High-standing members of the Church had already stated that observation was useless, as God could make the universe appear however He wished, and that only the Church’s teachings could reveal the truth.
What proof would then be possible? (By the way, how can you prove that the Earth goes around the Sun now? I dare you to do so.)
Because of the nature of this subject, care must be taken in choosing readings. Until recently, Protestant literature on the Inquisition tended to be hostile to the Catholic Church, while Catholic literature tended to be apologetic and justificatory.
as a Protestant, I may be biased, but how can a good history of the Inquisition not be hostile to the Catholic Church?
As noted as far back as the time of Aristotle, the proof of the earth in motion can be demostrated by stellar parallax. In 1838 Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61 Cygni.
So, we have the clear statement from Bellarmine, a leader of the Holy Office, that proof would be accepted. We have a demonstration that such proof is possible. We know that Galileo did not provide that proof. And we have you nattering on for post after post about the attack on science demonstrating that you don’t even know the details of the case.
No. It is a legitimate tool that does not provide proof. Proof requires falsifiability. Galileo’s theories were no more falsifiable than Brahe’s and Brahe’s calculations did a better job of predicting planetary position than Galileo’s calculations (since Galileo screwed up and posited circular orbits).
This still boils down to you erroneously claiming that terracentrism was a doctrine of the church.
Which, as has been pointed out to you several times, was a claim by the jurists that was only their personal belief. The condemnation of 1633 was actually for violating the terms of the trial of 1616. The jurists incorrectly imposed their own views of theology on the issue, probably based on personal prejudice. If the church was out to oppose Galileo on matters of science, why did they refuse to condemn him (or even bring him to trial) until they had already dismissed two accusations and were then forced to deal with the demands he made on the pope? It would seem to a rational analysis (concept of parsimony, Occam’s razor, and all that), that if Galileo was actually teaching against established doctrine, they would have siezed upon the first accusation to silence him, immediately. Instead, it took until the third time that he was brought up on charges that they even considered the matter, and then they merely forbade him to teach heliocentrism as truth, not telling him to be silent completely. (The document produced in the second trial that did tell him to be silent was never shown to Galileo and there are many that believe it was a forgery inserted to get him in trouble at the second trial.)
Terracentrism was not doctrine. You are wrong. You have failed every request to provide evidence of your faulty position.
Well, good Catholic history of the Inquisition will tend to be hostile, as well. However, what the phrase generally means is that much of older Protestant literature grossly exaggerated the numbers of people harmed by the Inquisition (and often pretended that the Protestants of the time were not doing exactly the same thing, but with less formal organization). Even the Spanish Inquisition that Catholic scholars have acknowledged was abominable has been exaggerated in its scope and power. It was quite horrible enough on what it did do, but claims for the people it killed have often been magnified by a factor of 10 or even more.
** That’s not proof. The stars themselves might be moving in such a way so as to cause the appearance that the Earth is moving.
I mean, it violates all of the scientific principles of parsimony, but it could be that way. So until you come up with some actual proof, I see no reason to consider this hypothesis any more valid than the idea that the Earth stays still while the universe rotates around it.
** Proof is most certainly not possible.
** And as I’ve shown, the hypothesis that the universe is rotating around the Earth in an extremely complicated course cannot be falsified, since it gives results that are completely consistent with what we observe. There is therefore no proof. :rolleyes:
What does it actually take for a concept to become Church doctrine? Are you suggesting that it actually requires an official statement of the Pope?
Church tradition has been that the traditions of the Church are just as important as the works of Scripture. The tradition of the RCC at the time was that humanity was the purpose of the universe’s existence, the crowning glory of God’s Creation. The idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, with the heavens circling above it, was used to reinforce and support this theological position.
It was one of the teachings of the Church; the documents from the period themselves demonstrate this. Cope with it.
Exaggerated by enemies of the Catholic Church or not, the evils of that era were just that - evils. And I don’t think they were corrected from within but rather by pressure from without.
My comment on the Galileo-Church affair is that the Church was, and is, an authoritarian organization; Galileo was apparently and egotistical, abrasive and demanding personality. Does that give the Church the right to threaten burning at the stake as was done with Giordano Bruna and lifelong house arrest in its stead?
Throwing Galileo out of the club by excommunication? Sure. But death by fire? All of the rationalization about Galileo’s faults, mistakes and other such ancillary fogging up of the affair doesn’t justify the action of the Church in my mind.
Lets not forget the Index of Forbidden Books on which Galileo’s works were placed upon. The Catholic Church in the cases of Galileo and Bruno had absolutely no right to suppress the work of these men.
No. Given your errors on so many other pooints, I see no reason to concede your error on the issue of what was doctrine. You have none. It was not doctrine. Continuing to assert a falsehood is not making you more credible.
There is no question that the Inquisition was suppressed by outside forces. Even the Index was only overthrown by the revolution of Vatican II.
The burning of Bruno (or any other heretic) was wrong. It was a part of how people behaved at the time, (as the many executions carried out by Protestants attests), but it was still wrong.
Similarly, the suppression of Galileo was wrong. It was particularly wrong because it was, (contrary to TVAA’s erroneous assertion), done out of personal irritation, but it would have been wrong even if the Holy Office actually thought it was “protecting” the Church.
(My dispute is not that Galileo was not unfairly tried or convicted; I merely note that the charge of opposing science is incorrect.)
[ nitpick ] Galileo was never threatened with torture. It is probable that the instruments of torture were laid out at the side of the trial room, as they were in all such Inquisitorial trials,* but at no time in the trials of 1616 or 1633 was he actually threatened with their use. Several historians and commentators (including the fiercely anti-religious Thomas Huxley) have commented on the exceeding deference and respect that the Inquisitors directed toward Galileo (all the while acting to shut him up, of course).
It has even been suggested that the implements were not even in the room, but were recited as part of the pro forma opening of the trial. I have not seen evidence to support that conclusion, however. [ /nitpick ]
How can you say this when Galileo’s scientific works were placed on the Index and Catholics were forbidden to read them. How is that not opposing science. In the vein even today the CC is still doing it with statements by JP2 stating that trying to explain human thought by material means (cognitive neuroscience) is an affront to human dignity.
If you don’t want to wade through all of it, which I understand, here’s a specific quote from White’s book that may be of interest:
On page 165 of White‘s book it reads:
“In 1870 a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Rev. Mr. Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth. This Catholic clergyman showed from the original record that Pope Paul V, in 1616, had presided over the tribunal condemning the doctrine of the earth’s movement, and ordering Galileo to give up the opinion. He showed that Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, pressed on, directed, and promulgated the final condemnation, making himself in all these ways responsible for it. And, finally, he showed that Pope Alexander VII, in 1664, by his bull—Speculatores domus Israel–attached to the Index, condemning ‘all books which affirm the motion of the earth,’ had absolutely pledged the papal infallibility against the earth’s movement. He also confessed that under the rules laid down by the highest authorities in the Church, and especially by Sixtus V and Pius IX, there was no escape from this conclusion.”
If you want specific quotes of the Pope’s issuing their bulls and decrees condemning Galileo’s findings, you’ll find that in White’s book too.
Although the biblical passage says “the sun stood still,” some biblical apologists claim that the appearance of the sun standing still by having the earth stand still relative to the sun would be an acceptable explanation. To an astronomer, either solution pretty much requires a substantual supernatural element.
There’s some dispute that the bible says that. Here’s Cecil’s take on it (at the end of the page; it’s only a sub-topic). One thing the bible doesn’t say is “the value of pi is 3.000”. A verse in Chronicles gives the dimensions of a pot by diameter (10 units) and circumference (30 units). Computing pi from that does not give us 3.14159…
I’m the last person in the world to explain away an obvious biblical error, but this one seems like it might be an estimate and/or never intended as a geometry lesson.
Anyone with Galileo’s intellectual capacity and knowing what happened to Bruno and anyone else who threatened the hierarchy’s position wouldn’t have to be overtly threatened with torture by crude displays of the instruments of torture. The direction in which his dispute was headed wasn’t exactly obscure.
