copernicus and heliocentricity

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just an interesting article I read today. This article isn't mainly about the topic of this thread, but the topic is mentioned.

[quote]Astronomer Copernicus Recreated?
Nov. 7, 2005 — Human remains excavated in a cathedral in northern Poland are very likely those of the Renaissance astronomer Nicolas Copernicus, archaeologists working in the cathedral said Thursday.

The remains of a 70-year-old man were dug up near the altar of the cathedral in Frombork, where Copernicus held the office of canon.

A police laboratory in Warsaw used the skull to make a virtual reconstruction of the man's face which resembled portraits of Copernicus, a key figure in the scientific revolution of the 17th century with his heliocentric theory of the solar system.

Archaeologists said a scar on Copernicus' head visible in a portrait corresponded to a mark near the eyebrow on the skull.

"It is very likely that it is the skull of Nicolas Copernicus," said Jerzy Gassowski of the Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology in the central Polish town of Pulutsk, who is directing excavations in the cathedral.

"Our starting theory, according to which canons were buried at the time near the altar of their church, has been confirmed," Gassowski said on Polish television.

Copernicus, who lived from 1473 to 1543, developed the heliocentric theory which took account of the orbit of planets round the sun.

His best known work, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, was published a few days before his death and in 1616 was condemned by Pope Paul V as being contrary to the Biblical Scriptures.[/quote]

Note that last paragraph about the Pope's condemnation. It would seem simply reading this that the Pope made a declaration on faith and morals regarding scripture that was later shown to be false. What are your thoughts on that last paragraph? Is it misleading in some way? I know some have said he only banned it until "corrections" could be made. What were these corrections? Does anyone know of this issue?

Edited November 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

There is no declaration on faith and morals condemning Galileo, so I suppose it is misleading. Theological dudes condemned galileo, and Pope Paul V was informed, but I don't believe there was a declaration of faith that would constitute magisterial teaching contra Galileo.

As far as I know (its been a while), it was Pope Urban VIII(?) who was more involved in the Galileo business. It was during Pope Urban's pontificate that Galileo was brought before the inquisitional court and his book at that time was condemned because it had ideas that were heretical or potentially heretical. But there was never a declaration or papal statement which would constitute a teaching of the Magisterium.

I can look into it more if you want, its been years since I've read anything about it.

God bless.

P.S. That last line in that quote is also a radical over-simplification, as is my post. There was a lot going on.. I'll see if I can find a cool article.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I like this article a lot:
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.html[/url]

This is a pithy description of the affair:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp[/url]

[jasJis]

The Gallileo was a special interest to me one summer and I read up on it. If you were to really get into it, it's not as black & white as it seems and is often portrayed.

Both popes were speaking about Science Fact gleaned from Scripture. That's not Faith. The problem really lie in theologians running behind science advancement at the time. There were theologians that were incorporating the new science discoveries into accepted theology, but it wasn't being accepted as fast as Science. Gallileo mostly got embroiled into the politcs surrounding this transition, and alot had to do with his stubborn personality. Gallileo never wanted to teach heresey. Gallileo believed that Science proved t he complexity and perfection of God. Gallileo only got a relative 'slap on the wrist' from the Inquisition and 'technically' really wasn't convicted of any official wrong doing.

[Aloysius]

this artical appears to be about Copernicus rather than Galileo.

Galileo did attempt to teach many heresies that were completely out of the ability of science anyway. He attached much of his scientific theories to different conclusions about faith that were incorrect and even made many scientific statements that he could not back up. had he been able to prove those theories scientifically, he wouldn't have been in so much trouble from his FELLOW SCIENTISTS who labeled him a loon. had he not attached them to other heresies, he wouldn't have been in trouble from the Church who labeled him a heretic.

As regards Galileo, I say: good riddens to bad apples. we figured out that the earth revolved around the sun by other methods of sound science and we didn't have to compromise infallible truth.

Copernicus... I don't know anything about his dealings with the Church

[jasJis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:35 AM']this artical appears to be about Copernicus rather than Galileo.

Galileo did attempt to teach many heresies that were completely out of the ability of science anyway.  He attached much of his scientific theories to different conclusions about faith that were incorrect and even made many scientific statements that he could not back up.  had he been able to prove those theories scientifically, he wouldn't have been in so much trouble from his FELLOW SCIENTISTS who labeled him a loon.  had he not attached them to other heresies, he wouldn't have been in trouble from the Church who labeled him a heretic.

As regards Galileo, I say: good riddens to bad apples.  we figured out that the earth revolved around the sun by other methods of sound science and we didn't have to compromise infallible truth.

Copernicus... I don't know anything about his dealings with the Church
[right][snapback]782540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Do a bit more research, Al. You're off-kilter. Start with the catholic.com article link in Laudate's post above.

[Aloysius]

Yes, that artical affirms Galileo's anti-incarnational heresies...

And that Galileo could not necessarily prove all of his scientific assumptions...

and that the scientists of his day were against him...

what, pretell, am I missing?

((and again, the point of this thread was originall Copernicus, not Galileo))

[jasJis]

Not all the scienteists were against him. Gallileo wasn't advocating heresey. Gallileo was a very faithful Catholic, though not perfect. The Church admits it over-reacted. Since you say 'good riddance to bad apples", you must dis-agree with the Church's aplology.

[Myles Domini]

When in doubt go to New Advent

From the trusty article on: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm"]Nicolas Copernicus[/url]

[quote]On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.[/quote]

According to this it was not Paul V but the Index that condemned Copernicus and, indeed, according to this Copernicus' work (even in the original) wasn't long on the Index of forbidden books either. I can imagine Benedict XIV's removal of Copernicus' original text from the Index had something to do with Newton's work in the late 17th century which illustrated that Copernicus' theorem was accuarate.

[Aloysius]

Galileo advocated heresies not necessarily connected to his heliocentrism, but he insisted on connecting them to it and claiming them all as scientific.

a lot of the conclusions he drew were unscientific.

whether or not the Church's apology is correct has nothing to do with this. it is a nice thing that the pope apologized on behalf of the Church, but it doesn't mean that Galileo did not hold to certain heresies.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.[/quote]

Thanks, that does help clarify.

But a follow up. What were the justifications for the pope to put the book on the forbidden list? Were they simply that we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or that the certainty goes against the bible? It's easy to look back and say the former, even if the latter were true. (can't forget the revisionist theories espoused by ehrman and company) I guess we might speculate that the popes did seem somewhat open to the science as shown in those links by Laud, but one might still wonder. Does anyone know how to get info on my new ??

[quote]1620 these corrections were indicated. [/quote]
Well, this might help clarify too. What does this mean?
And were the books allowed in 1620 or not until that 1700 date?

Edited November 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Myles Domini]

The Popes in general didnt put books on the Index. They had the power to do so without consultation obviously but for the most part the Congregation of the Index, as their name implies, handled those affairs--the authority being delegated to them by the Petrine Chair (obviously). Judging from what I've read Paul V seemed to have minimal involvement in the affair but given the way history played out your suggestion that they simply wanted Copernicus' work read as hypothesis and fact prior to it being proven makes most sense.

After the corrections of 1620 (which altered any parts of the book that made the claim to be teaching a definitive fact and not a hypothetical construct) Copernicus' work was allowed to be read in edited form. The original unedited form was subsequently removed from the Index by Benedict XIV. Hence, I would conclude that the Congregation for the Index were motivated in their actions by a desire to prevent Copernicus' work as being read as fact before it was conclusively shown to be so. Indeed, the same option was given to Galileo if I recall but he declined it saying he could prove his theorem--which he couldnt.


PS) I stand by Al. Galileo was a heretic and he is lucky that he had friends in high places. In the 17th century Europe not everyone could deny the Incarnation or declare the book of Joshua errenous and escape having to carry the green candle.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm gone for a few days and I come back to discover that this thread has ended up quite cool.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 8 2005, 12:16 PM']Not all the scienteists were against him.  Gallileo wasn't advocating heresey.  Gallileo was a very faithful Catholic, though not perfect.  The Church admits it over-reacted.  Since you say 'good riddance to bad apples", you must dis-agree with the Church's aplology.
[right][snapback]782583[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

One word, Corpuscularianism.

I've actually read some of the guy, and he was most definitely supportive of heresy...