The Church didn’t persecute Galileo because his model somehow “wasn’t ready”. It wasn’t interested in the evidence! As Pope Urban said, no matter what the universe appeared to be, only the teachings of the Church could be considered definitive. Brahe’s model was the heliocentric model, plus corrections that compensated for the elliptical shape of the planetary orbits, from an Earth-centered perspective. Galileo was sufficiently honest to point out that parsimony required this model to be openly called “heliocentric”. The Church censured him because he publically contradicted its teachings.
Not true. The church heard Galileo’s evidence, and seized upon the many flaws in his model. There were too many problems with that model to reconsider scriptural interpretation.**
Galileo’s model was not based on Brahe’s. The distinguishing feature of Brahe’s model was elliptical orbits. Galileo’s model used perfectly circular orbits. Galileo was not arguing that Brahe’s model should be lableled “heliocentric,” he was arguing that his own model accurately described the universe and that therefore the church should revise its teachings. On that score, he was correct on the “big picture” of heliocentrism but wrong in the model he presented – obviously wrong, in fact. And the church basically said “we aren’t going to revise our view of things unless someone makes those flaws disappear, and until someone does, you’d best not teach this stuff as absolute truth.” **
I was just thinking the same about you. I was looking over this thread, and I noted that you quote Bellarmine as saying that if it came down to science proving heliocentrism and him admitting his reading of the scripture was wrong, that he would rather take the side of science admit his interpretation of scripture was in error. And yet, somehow, you try to spin this into an anti-science statement. It seems to me to be quite the opposite. It seems to me to be basically saying “science can trump our understanding of scripture.” Your reading seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest.
I understand the need to see history in black and white, but it usually just ain’t so. This case, like most others, is painted in shades of gray.
You didn’t read the link I presented. I thought so.
The Catholic scholar, from the Catholic site, was the source of that interpretation.
Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Bellarmine was completely unwilling to entertain the idea that the Holy Scriptures were incorrect. Even if it were proven beyond all possible doubt that the Earth went around the Sun (which is simply impossible to do), instead of concluding that the Scriptures were wrong, he’d decide that he just misunderstood them somehow.
That mindset is fundamentally opposed to the scientific process.
Now, that’s the last I have to say on this subject. You may continue to embarrass yourself as you wish.
Actually, I did read the link, and unlike you I understood it. The link is a dialogue between site author Gary Hoge (who, incidentally, on the main page clearly notes that he is not a scholar) and a biology student arguing for faith-based acceptance of geocentrism. Here is the entire portion of the dialogue from which you found your quote:
In short, Hoge is not saying that Bellarmine was opposed to science requiring review of scriptural interpretation; quite the contrary, the author is using Bellarmine’s words as support for the notion that, given the amount of support we now have for heliocentrism, that such a revision is entirely appropriate.
You can’t even understand your own citations. Sheesh.**
Let me get this straight: a mindset that says scriptural interpretation must be revisited in the face of scientific proof is opposed to science? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
Saying “we do not understand” the scriptures is the same as saying as saying they need reinterpretation. Bellarmine clearly found that to be a better option in the face of a “true demonstration” of heliocentrism than saying “that which has been demonstrated” is false.
I can’t be any clearer than that. You have simply misread Bellarmine. He was saying that reinterpretation would be necessary in the face of conclusive proof.
He’s saying that the correctness of the Scriptures cannot be questioned, merely their human interpretation of it.
It’s the same reasoning as “it doesn’t matter how God made the world appear, the teachings of the Church are correct”. The Scriptures would only appear to be incorrect – God’s Word cannot be wrong!
It also shows that Bellarmine didn’t understand heliocentrism any more than you do. There is no way to prove that the universe isn’t actually revolving around the Earth in an insanely complex manner.
But look at this – I’ve let your idiocy draw me back into this debate.
Not even Galileo thought otherwise – he wanted the Scriptures reinterpreted in light of heliocentrism, not discarded altogether. **
This is decidedly incorrect. Bellarmine is clearly saying that the “teachings of the Church” – i.e., interpretation of scripture – must bend to science when a “true demonstration” of a scientific theory is presented.
How you contort this into an anti-science position is quite unclear. Just reading the quote proves you wrong. **
One could start by presenting a model that doesn’t have glaring holes in it, as Galileo failed to do.
What actual scientific theory put forth by Bruno got him condemned? He was condemned for saying that Osiris was more the Son of God than was Jesus Christ. And you guys are out to lunch on the Holy Inquisition. The Catholic Church has never executed a single person. The civil governments did that as they had made heresy a capital offense. The Holy Inquisition took those accused of heresy under its protection as the civil governments did not have the competence to determine who was and who was not a heretic. If the person was determined to be orthodox then they went free and were untouchable. If the person refused to recant of their heresy then the Holy Inquisition could not protect them and turned them over to the civil government for execution. It was the Holy Inquisition that first introduced the court of appeal. Please educate yourselves on these matters so as not to be guilty of helping the Church’s enemies spread their many calumnies against Her.
I am not sure that reviving a thread from 2007 to chastise posters who have not posted to the board in years is going to be very effective.
In addition, while is true that, in general, the church did not actually order executions, (handing those in conflict with it over to civil authorities to be executed), given the church’s political power and influence at the times of those heresy trials, such “civil” executions tended to be little more than legal fictions that created a technical distinction that did nothing to save anyone’s life. I do not recall the church ever filing an amicus brief with the civil authorities asking that an execution not be carried out.
and such executions were often directed against conspirators actively engaged in actions to violently overthrow the government on the chaos of post-Bonaparte Italy, not in Religious crusades or persecutions.
One may well argue that the church should have never allowed itself to become a temporal power, but it is hardly surprising that, having become one, it took steps to defend itself.
Except for a small period between 1810 and 1819, it seems that most of the executions were non-political by nature, and had little to do with protecting the power of the church. Quite a few executions for non-political murders, robberies(one person was hanged for stealing a watch, another hanged and and quartered for stealing a pair of boots and L.60), and one I’d love to get the story behind-Tommaso Rotiliesi, hanged for slightly wounding a French officer.
Even though the French didn’t officially occupy the Papal States until 1808, in 1806 they definitely held the whip, and I’d imagine an attack on a French officer wouldn’t have been looked on favorably by the Papal authorities, who were trying to keep their at least nominal independence.
