Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: curiosity
I know we are in full agreement on the first issue [whether what they did to him was wrong].

Yes.

To what extent do you agree with me about the second? [whether they were dogmatically comitted to geocentrism]

It wasn't Church dogma (a core doctrine of the faith), but it was the traditional worldview. It appears that they were rather casual about it earlier (pre Galileo) because the traditional interpretation of scripture had no serious competitor. Copernicus could be ignored, as his was only a mathematical model. Bruno got torched (by Bellarmine, by the way), but he had multiple issues so we won't dwell on him.

I'm not an expert on the history of that period, but I suspect that the Galileo affair was really the first time they took a formal position that deviating from the geocentric view was heresy. (Presumably, heresy can involve scriptural disputes that go beyond rejection of an article of dogma; but you'd have to ask an expert on canon law.) Because geocentricism isn't central to the mission of the Church, it could have been ignored; but they went out of their way to get involved in a purely optional issue. They decided to make the solar system heretical -- a blunder of historic significance. Galileo's martyrdom is a consequence of their foolishness, rather than his crankiness. That's the key to my view.

All they had to do was sit back and ignore the thing, letting science do what science does. But they felt, for what must have seemed good reasons to them at the time, that they had to draw a line in the sand. So they did.

69 posted on 02/05/2006 2:03:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
I'm not an expert on the history of that period, but I suspect that the Galileo affair was really the first time they took a formal position that deviating from the geocentric view was heresy.

Actually, they didn't. From your link:

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

"Erroneous in faith" is a fancy way of saying contrary to the eccelsiastical consensus opinion. It's quite a different thing from heresy. It's an important difference because ecclesiastical consensus opinion is not irreformable, and often does change. On the other hand, heresy is a doctrine that is contrary to irreformable dogma.

Of course, they did declare as heresy the proposition that the sun is the center of the universe, but on this they were absolutely correct.

70 posted on 02/05/2006 2:21:14 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson