Sungenis/Galileo

[Rogerteder]

From Sungenis' web site

Hi Robert, I have something you might be interested in. One High School Text Book called The Histoy of the Church, a Complete Course, part of the Didache Series, says the following about Galileo:



"In 1979 Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to reopen the case against Galileo and publicly pardon the scientist, not because his refined theory (a "fact not yet definitively prooven") was vindicated , but for the treatment he had received. At a papal audience in 1992, the commission that reexamined the case affirmed the possibility that:



certain theologians, Galileo's contemporaries...failed to grasp the profound non literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe...it is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo's judges...believed quite wrongly that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven was such as to undermine Catholic tradition...These mistakes must be frankly recognized as you, Holy Father have requested (Faith can never conflict with reason)



R. Sungenis: Thank you, John, for sending this. Unfortunately, it is more of the same I've seen elsewhere.



First, John Paul II did not "publicly pardon" Galileo. One can read his address to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1992 (which was written by Cardinal Poupard) and you will not find an official apology.



Second, the PAS address hardly mentioned the "treatment" Galileo received. It dealt mainly with what it called a "misunderstanding" between Galileo and the Church. As for Galileo's treatment, he was treated rather well for someone who said that the Church's official interpretation of Scripture on cosmology was wrong, especially when he had no proof for his scientific theory.



In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger once said: "At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just" (From a speech given in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, partly reported in Il Sabato, March 31, 1990, pp. 80ff, and in the Corriere della Sera, March 30, 1990, and cited in 30 Days, January 1993, p. 34, and referenced also by Atila S. Guimarães in “The Swan Song of Galileo’s Myth,” published by Tradition in Action, nd.).



As for the claim that it was only "certain theologians" who were involved in this is a pure farce. It is one of Cardinal Poupard's most glaring whitewashes, and I'm ashamed that a Catholic would even dare make such a ludicrous claim. It was none other than the pope himself (Paul V) along with his top cardinal, Bellarmine, who were the engine behind the condemnation of Galileo and Copernicanism in 1616. Again in 1633, it was Pope Urban VIII who, in conversations with the Duke of Tuscany, sought himself to silence Galileo, and eventually approved his Sacred Congregations condemnation of both Galileo and heliocentrism, calling the latter "formally heretical," the highest condemnation the Church can give to a stated proposition.



As for the issue of "non-literal interpretation," the fact remains that the Catholic Church, for 1500 years prior to Galileo had unanimously confirmed the literal interpretation of the Bible's cosmological passages. There was absolutely no dissent. Even after Galileo, the Church never committed herself to a non-literal interpretation of the cosmological passages, since there is NO official statement from the Church saying so.



Hence, the Church's official position on Galileo has NEVER changed. He was condemned as "vehenemtly suspect of heresy," and the concept of heliocentrism was declared "formally heretical." Both were issued in a canonical trial, and only a canonical reversal of the trial's findings could ever release the Church from the trial's conclusions. But we have been led to think it has changed by the powers-that-be, and that will probably persist until the end of time, barring a direct intervention from God.



If anyone wants to challenge this historical analysis, then they need to show the contrary evidence. In the meantime, I suggest that those who are interested pick up a copy of my book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume 2, and learn the real history of the Galileo affair.



God be with you.

[Orogeny]

Are you the official Sungenis disciple these days?

If Sungenis wants to beat this dead horse, why doesn't he do it himself? Why does he need a surrogate?

Peace

Tim

[Rogerteder]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

Are you the official Sungenis disciple these days?

If Sungenis wants to beat this dead horse, why doesn't he do it himself? Why does he need a surrogate?

Peace

Tim

He was asked a question and he answered it. If you disagree with him please say why.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Rogerteder

certain theologians, Galileo's contemporaries...failed to grasp the profound non literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe...it is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo's judges...believed quite wrongly that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven was such as to undermine Catholic tradition...These mistakes must be frankly recognized as you, Holy Father have requested (Faith can never conflict with reason)

This was the heart of the debate: how scripture was to be interpreted, who was to interpret it, and what were the implications of the new theory.

It was none other than the pope himself (Paul V) along with his top cardinal, Bellarmine, who were the engine behind the condemnation of Galileo and Copernicanism in 1616.

This is simply wrong (about Paul V and Bellarmine) and misses the point about what the Galileo controversy was initially about (when PV and B were involved), which was whether heliocentrism was theory or fact. The Church accepted that it could be taught as theory, Galileo wanted to proclaim it as fact. That it is demonstrably true (now) doesn't change the fact that Galileo could not prove his assertions then so the Church's position (on this point) was reasonable.

the fact remains that the Catholic Church, for 1500 years prior to Galileo had unanimously confirmed the literal interpretation of the Bible's cosmological passages.

This was what so concerned the Church: if she had misinterpreted those passages, what else did she get wrong? There was some major reinterpretation and evaluation that needed to happen and she wanted that to proceed under her control in an orderly manner. I think this is where Urban and Galileo ultimately clashed and what led to the final condemnation.

What is overlooked in this controversy is the Church's basic position that there can be no conflict between God's truth and reality: if Galileo was right then scripture would have to be reinterpreted. Here is Bellarmine's comment on this:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

Ender