On what canonical basis is Giordano Bruno still a heretic as far as the Catholic Church is concerned

[davidmich]

Hi
On what canonical basis is Giordano Bruno still a heretic as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I have been unable verify the actual canon laws that the Church still cites to deny Bruno complete rehabilitation.

[bonzer]

It should be noted up front that we don’t really know the exact basis on which Bruno was condemned. There is the earlier broad list of charges that were being thrown at him, but it’s unknown what weight was subsequently given to each of those.

To take the obvious counterexample, Galileo is rather unusual in that the final charges and rulings were deliberately disseminated throughout Catholic Europe. That didn’t happen with Bruno, so the details of them are much more conjectural.

[GIGObuster]

The view from the Catholic encyclopedia and from the more conservative Catholic Magazine:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Giordano Bruno

Italian philosopher, b. at Nola in Campania, in the Kingdom of Naples, in 1548; d. at Rome, 1600. At the age of eleven he went to Naples, to study “humanity, logic, and dialectic”, and, four years later, he entered the Order of St. Dominic, giving up his worldly name of Filippo and taking that of Giordano. He made his novitiate at Naples and continued to study there. In 1572 he was ordained priest.

It seems, however, that, even as a novice, he attracted attention by the originality of his views and by his outspoken criticism of accepted theological doctrines. After his ordination things reached such a pass that, in 1576, formal accusation of heresy was brought against him. Thereupon he went to Rome, but, apparently, did not mend his manner of speaking of the mysteries of faith; for the accusations were renewed against him at the convent of the Minerva. Within a few months of his arrival he fled the city and cast off all allegiance to his order.

In Germany, whither he went in 1587, he showed the same spirit of insolent self-assertion as at Oxford. In Helmstadt he was excommunicated by the Lutherans. After some time spent in literary activity at Frankfort, he went, in 1591, to Venice at the invitation of Mocenigo, who professed to be interested in his system of memory-training. Failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his “natural magic”, Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. Bruno was arrested, and in his trial before the Venetian inquisitors first took refuge in the principle of “two-fold truth”, saying that the errors imputed to him were held by him “as a philosopher, and not as an honest Christian”; later, however, he solemnly abjured all his errors and doubts in the matter of Catholic doctrine and practice (Berti, Docum., XII, 22 and XIII, 45). At this point the Roman Inquisition intervened and requested his extradition. After some hesitation the Venetian authorities agreed, and in February, 1593, Bruno was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of the Inquisition. Historians have striven in vain to discover the explanation of this long delay on the part of the Roman authorities. 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.

Giordano Bruno: How Fact Becomes Anti-Catholic Fiction

**By the age of 18, he had already rejected the divinity of Christ and belief in the Trinity. In contemporary understanding, that made Bruno not merely a heretic, but an atheist. (In the 16th century, atheism was defined not as a complete rejection of the existence of God—a simply incomprehensible position—but rejection of Christ.)

But Bruno kept these views to himself and was ordained a priest for the Order of Preachers in 1572. At this point he began to develop a mish-mash of ideas, a combination of Plato, Protestant theology, Hebrew mysticism, his own “atheism” and the philosophical wanderings of a 15th-century German priest and cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa (1400-1464).

Bruno had come to believe that God had created—and continues to create—an infinite number of worlds, both in an infinitely large outer space, and an infinitely small inner space, if you will. It was that belief in an infinitely small “inner space” of creation that led some to see him as the originator of modern science, with our understanding of a world made up of atomic and subatomic particles.**

But in this, he was simply regurgitating Cardinal Cusa’s speculations, which were philosophical musings, not scientific investigations. Cusa’s goal was to find the proof of God—the action of God’s creation—in all matter great and small.

Bruno’s goal was different, describing an endless universe of endless creating that God needed, rather than a universe that needed God. As one of his cellmates in Venice put it: “He said that God needed the world as much as the world needed God, and that God would be nothing without the world, and for this reason God did nothing but create new worlds.”

If that sounds like mumbo-jumbo, it’s because it is mumbo-jumbo.

Trying to get to the root of Bruno’s beliefs is like wrestling with an eel. The scientific methods employed by a true nascent scientist like Nicholas Copernicus were processes the free-thinking Bruno loathed.

That is what makes him such an odd pick for a scientific martyr. Though possessing knowledge of contemporary mathematics, Bruno had little use for calculations or observation, preferring to borrow ideas from across the landscape and to fuse them into unintelligibility. Bruno’s “science” is as meaningless today as it was in his own time.

Well, Bruno then was Rick Sanches…

In any case, one bit of a complaint here to the Catholic Magazine:

Bruno’s goal was different, describing an endless universe of endless creating that God needed, rather than a universe that needed God. As one of his cellmates in Venice put it: “He said that God needed the world as much as the world needed God, and that God would be nothing without the world, and for this reason God did nothing but create new worlds.”

If that sounds like mumbo-jumbo, it’s because it is mumbo-jumbo.

Oh. Really? :dubious:

Atmosphere containing water detected around rocky exoplanet

Yes, not making a point about God there, but about how close Bruno was about realizing that yes, there are countless planets out there. IMHO one has to remember here that it sounds to me a lot like when Wegener got the credit for Continental drift and Plate tectonics. He was found to be wrong about many things, but because he got the main idea right, he got the credit.

[septimus]

The short answer to OP’s question is: Bruno dared to think. The Catholic Church may have come around on certain scientific facts — I guess they rehabilitated Galileo when they finally decided the Earth might orbit the Sun — but independent human thought is still something the Catholic Church evidently does not accept.

It’s sad to see that the following was written in 2011. No wonder some of us call this the post-rational era. Note the brainless hyperbole at the end.

[QUOTE=Robert P. Lockwood, director of communications for the Diocese of Pittsburgh]
Bruno had come to believe that God had created—and continues to create—an infinite number of worlds, both in an infinitely large outer space, and an infinitely small inner space, if you will.

… simply regurgitating …
… one of his cellmates …
If that sounds like mumbo-jumbo, it’s because it is mumbo-jumbo.

Trying to get to the root of Bruno’s beliefs is like wrestling with an eel. The scientific methods employed by a true nascent scientist like Nicholas Copernicus were processes the free-thinking Bruno loathed.

That is what makes him such an odd pick for a scientific martyr. Though possessing knowledge of contemporary mathematics, Bruno had little use for calculations or observation, preferring to borrow ideas from across the landscape and to fuse them into unintelligibility. Bruno’s “science” is as meaningless today as it was in his own time.

…

Bruno was now reinvented as a martyr to science and reason. On June 9, 1889, over 2,000 anti-clerical organizations rallied at the erection of the statue of Bruno. “Today,” they announced, “the date of the religion of reason is established.”

Within a generation, Italy would be a Fascist state.
[/QUOTE]

Was Copernicus smarter or a better scientist than Bruno? Certainly — but only in the sense that he managed not to get himself burned at the stake.

In fact Copernicus seems to have never realized what Bruno figured out — that the fixed stars were at a huge distance, that they were suns like our own, and might have planets with life. (IIRC, Copernicus still put the stars on a fixed sphere like Ptolemy did.)

The idea that the heavens are ruled by the same physical laws as apply on Earth was the key philosophical breakthrough that led to the Scientific Revolution. Galileo gives credit to William Gilbert for this breakthrough; but Gilbert in turn borrows from Giordano Bruno and specifically credits him in one work. The Catholic Church makes itself look stupid.

[Chronos]

The fact that one of his crazy-ass guesses turned out to be right does not mean that it was anything other than a crazy-ass guess.

[Pleonast]

@septimus

Was Copernicus smarter or a better scientist than Bruno?

Is there any indication that Bruno was a scientist (that is, form opinions based on evidence)?

[septimus]

Was Copernicus a scientist? He did essentially no experiments himself, excepting a routine student’s work. He derived his (incorrect) theory as a mathematical thinker, using others’ observations. Much of the math he used was relatively simple and/or based on prior work. The theory he devised was incorrect! (He used the old Greek epicycles; he put the fixed stars in a fixed sphere, etc.) His theory was widely ignored. (It become famous due to the writings of his successors … including Giordano Bruno, Brahe, Galileo.)

So being about as good a scientist as Copernicus is a very low bar to beat.

Still I don’t claim it as irrefutable that Bruno was a better scientist. Like Copernicus, he was a contemplater, not an experimentalist. Copernicus’ math talent was superior; but Bruno’s talent for (correct!) philosophical speculations was far superior to Copernicus’.

Copernicus may have been more influential, but Bruno certainly had some influence: He (and Nicolaus Cusanus?) were the first to posit “As it is on Earth, so it is in Heaven,” which was the very key and important element in the Galilean Revolution. IIRC there’s no evidence Galileo reacted to Bruno, but Galileo heaps thanks and admiration on William Gilbert who was inspired by Bruno.

I’ve decided to give the nod to Bruno over Copernicus. Yes, Bruno borrowed from Cusanus, but Copernicus borrowed from Islamic astronomer/mathematicians.

And there’s the sentimental sideline. Copernicus was a coward who waited till dead to publish. Bruno was a martyr who joined Jehanne d’Arc on the fire.

[Pleonast]

@septimus

Was Copernicus a scientist? He did essentially no experiments himself, excepting a routine student’s work. He derived his (incorrect) theory as a mathematical thinker, using others’ observations. Much of the math he used was relatively simple and/or based on prior work. The theory he devised was incorrect! (He used the old Greek epicycles; he put the fixed stars in a fixed sphere, etc.) His theory was widely ignored. (It become famous due to the writings of his successors … including Giordano Bruno, Brahe, Galileo.)

(Emphasis changed.) The key to being a scientist is using observations to test hypotheses. Copernicus did that. Did Bruno?

Being wrong is not a bar to being a scientist. Being ignored is not a bar to being a scientist. Being a coward is not a bar to being a scientist.

And, being right is not an indication of being a scientist.

Bruno is surely a champion against the dogmatic thinking of the Roman Church. Being literally burned at the stake as a heretic is a badge of honor. But I don’t see any merit in calling him a scientist.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@septimus

The short answer to OP’s question is: Bruno dared to think. The Catholic Church may have come around on certain scientific facts — I guess they rehabilitated Galileo when they finally decided the Earth might orbit the Sun — but independent human thought is still something the Catholic Church evidently does not accept.
[snipped]

Whatever (quasi) scientific discoveries Bruno may have made, he was conndemned as a heretic, for his view on divine stuff like transubstantiation or the virgin Mary.
Galileo failed to produce an answer for the problem of parallax (which seemed to negate heliocentrism) and it was only proven scientifically 100 years after his death. If you can’t solve the biggest scientific probelm to your theory, you haven’t proven it,

@septimus

[snipped]
And there’s the sentimental sideline. Copernicus was a coward who waited till dead to publish. Bruno was a martyr who joined Jehanne d’Arc on the fire.

Copernicus didn’t publish due to cowardice.
Joan of Arc was burnt for political reasons.

[Schnitte]

@septimus

I guess they rehabilitated Galileo when they finally decided the Earth might orbit the Sun

The reason why the rehabilitation of Galilei occurred so late was not that it took the Catholic Church so long to decide that the Earth might orbit the Sun. That was something the Church had come to terms with long before. The true reason was simply that the Catholic Church is run like a government machinery, along quite bureaucratic lines. Until John Paul II., nobody saw the need to formally initiate a procedure to reopen a file that had been closed centuries before.

[bonzer]

@septimus

Was Copernicus a scientist? He did essentially no experiments himself, excepting a routine student’s work. He derived his (incorrect) theory as a mathematical thinker, using others’ observations.

Copernicus certainly made astronomical observations, though perhaps not many in the grand scheme of things (and often accompanied by grumbles about the misty Baltic air). But this was one aspect of De Revolutionibus that was immediately recognised as important, since people did tend to realise that it was useful to have modern measurements of some of the basic parameters of astronomy, rather than just have to quote Ptolemy. His measurements were widely adopted even amongst those opposed to heliocentrism.

Much of the math he used was relatively simple and/or based on prior work.

Again, this was an aspect his contemporaries and successors were rather impressed with and were willing to co-opt Copernicus’s technical advances to their own ends.

His theory was widely ignored. (It become famous due to the writings of his successors … including Giordano Bruno, Brahe, Galileo.)

I generally strongly point you in the direction of Owen Gingerich’s excellent The Book Nobody Read (Heinemann, 2004). (The title is very ironic.)

Copernicus was a coward who waited till dead to publish.

Given the highly non-trivial logistics of publishing De Revolutionibus, he probably had no idea that he’d be on his deathbed by the time it was finished. When Rheticus persuaded him to publish, Copernicus probably had every hope of living well beyond the publication date. It’s probably largely coincidence that it didn’t work out that way.

[septimus]

@bonzer

Copernicus certainly made astronomical observations, though perhaps not many in the grand scheme of things (and often accompanied by grumbles about the misty Baltic air). But this was one aspect of De Revolutionibus that was immediately recognised as important, since people did tend to realise that it was useful to have modern measurements of some of the basic parameters of astronomy, rather than just have to quote Ptolemy. His measurements were widely adopted even amongst those opposed to heliocentrism.

Again, this was an aspect his contemporaries and successors were rather impressed with and were willing to co-opt Copernicus’s technical advances to their own ends.

I generally strongly point you in the direction of Owen Gingerich’s excellent The Book Nobody Read (Heinemann, 2004). (The title is very ironic.)

Given the highly non-trivial logistics of publishing De Revolutionibus, he probably had no idea that he’d be on his deathbed by the time it was finished. When Rheticus persuaded him to publish, Copernicus probably had every hope of living well beyond the publication date. It’s probably largely coincidence that it didn’t work out that way.

Thank you for your corrections. I can see Stonedimus was … exaggerating.

But can’t we all at least agree that Kepler was far more important than Copernicus?

I disagree with the condescending attitude toward Bruno (“lucky guesser” if I might paraphrase) but let’s leave that for another thread.

[Chronos]

Kepler’s work was certainly more advanced than Copernicus’s, but would he have ever come up with it without Copernicus’s contribution? Copernicus’s work was sufficiently novel that even Tycho didn’t accept heliocentrism.

[septimus]

@Chronos

Kepler’s work was certainly more advanced than Copernicus’s, but would he have ever come up with it without Copernicus’s contribution? Copernicus’s work was sufficiently novel that even Tycho didn’t accept heliocentrism.

Various Europeans had discussed heliocentrism, e.g. Martianus Capella of Carthage circa 450 AD, whom Copernicus himself cites, as well as later mathematical astronomers in both Europe and the Islamic world in the centuries just prior to Copernicus. While few had the audacity to propound heliocentrism, many were at least aware of the possibility. Kepler was one of the greatest of these mathematicians: I think that, absent mention of heliocentrism by Copernicus or Bruno, Kepler would most probably have adopted heliocentrism by himself.

[DinoR]

@Schnitte

Until John Paul II., nobody saw the need to formally initiate a procedure to reopen a file that had been closed centuries before.

So that’s one of the points I was going to make. It’s not like there’s a process to routinely reexamine old cases of heresy.

@Aji_de_Gallina

Whatever (quasi) scientific discoveries Bruno may have made, he was conndemned as a heretic, for his view on divine stuff like transubstantiation or the virgin Mary.

…and my second point. Bruno was an ordained member of a religious order who had beliefs that were counter to the central tenets of the religion. Even if heliocentrism isn’t controversial today, a priest questioning the central tenets of the religion still looks like heresy. No priest today is going to burn if he questions the divinity of Jesus. That’s understandably still kind of a big deal to the Church though.

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

Thank you for your corrections. I can see Stonedimus was … exaggerating.

But can’t we all at least agree that Kepler was far more important than Copernicus?

I disagree with the condescending attitude toward Bruno (“lucky guesser” if I might paraphrase) but let’s leave that for another thread.

I agree with you, and just one note on that: courtesy of Richard Feynman:

[QUOTE] In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it.

[Laughter from students]

Don’t laugh, that the real truth…

Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
[/QUOTE]

-The character of physical law. Part 7

So, half in jest: I will say that in the case of Bruno: It does not matter how crazy he was, or if it was a wild guess, if his insight agrees with experiments, it was/is correct. That is all there is to it.

[Chronos]

But even those of his guesses which were right, he wasn’t the one who did the comparing to nature.

[GIGObuster]

@Chronos

But even those of his guesses which were right, he wasn’t the one who did the comparing to nature.

Well, the same can be said of Democritus, he was also wrong about the nature of atoms, and for sure he did not get a hold of **any **direct way to check his ideas (this became possible when microscopes pointed to the presence of Brownian motion in the days of Einstein) but because he did get the main idea right, he gets historical credit/recognition for the atomic theory.

[Chronos]

Democritus gets a footnote for atomic theory. The primary credit goes to Dalton, who actually did support the idea with experimental evidence.

[davidmich]

@Schnitte

The reason why the rehabilitation of Galilei occurred so late was not that it took the Catholic Church so long to decide that the Earth might orbit the Sun. That was something the Church had come to terms with long before. The true reason was simply that the Catholic Church is run like a government machinery, along quite bureaucratic lines. Until John Paul II., nobody saw the need to formally initiate a procedure to reopen a file that had been closed centuries before.

Interesting point Schnitte . Thank you all. Very helpful