Now you deny history as well? http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy On this day in 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world." Along with the order came the following penalty: "We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms." Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith." The original report document was made widely available in 2014. Galileo was found guilty, and the sentence of the Inquisition, issued on 22 June 1633,[42] was in three essential parts: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions. He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html On April 8, Niccolini informed Galileo that he would stand trial before ten cardinals. A more difficult chore for Niccolini was to break the news to him that the merits of his case--as a practical matter--had been decided already; all he could do was submit. Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate. In the end, a majority of the cardinals--rejecting much of the Commissary's agreement with Galileo--demanded Galileo "even with the threat of torture...abjure in a plenary assembly of the Congregation of the Holy Office...[and] then be condemned to imprisonment at the pleasure of the Holy Congregation." Moreover, the cardinals declared, the Dialogue "is to be prohibited."
I am not going to address the dogma issue again. It's pointless. I think you are factually incorrect on the conviction of heresy. Please list a source that confirms this or you have to abandon that position. Dodging and weaving? List one source where the Church embraces creationism and you win. You cannot because the Church does not. Your central argument seems to be that science and the Church are in opposition. They are not. My lack of belief in evolution does not stem from my Catholic faith, they are two seperate issues.
This is an interesting case. Why didn't you mention this as an example of the dogma, b.s.? That would have saved us a lot of time. It seems that Copernicus had published essentially the same information as Galileo without incident. This leads me to believe that geocentrism was not official Church doctrine. Copernicus had published his in Latin and not in the venacular and for that reason apparently hadn't upset the Church hierarchy. Galileo's insulting the Pope probably didn't help his cause. Anyway, admittedly a poor showing by the Pope and the Church, in this case. I still would like to see some documentation from the Church embracing geocentrism. I would be suprised if that was official Church doctrine.
How many time must I say this . . . I have not attacked the Catholic Church. I have maintained that science can not accept religious creation legends. There are many religions besides Catholicism, are you aware? Moreover I am having a discussion with you and trying to get you to state clearly what it is that you believe and why you believe that. You said that is was not because of your Catholic beliefs. Then what?
Complex discussions play out like that sometimes. I guess I will have to copy this part over again. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world." And this part . . . with scans of original Church documents attached. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6168.pdf Here is a good synopsis on Copernicus and his conflicts with the Church. http://www.studentpulse.com/article...o-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world Copernicus published his book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (hereafter referred to simply as Revolutions) in 1543 shortly before his death.1.) In Revolutions, Copernicus states that the Sun is at the center and the Earth revolves around it while rotating on its axis daily.2.) Like all scholarly authors, Copernicus wrote in Latin, which only educated people could read, effectively minimizing the number of readers to a select few.3.) The phrasing Copernicus utilized was “that if the earth were in motion then the observed phenomenon would result.”4.) This phrasing is extremely important as it means the Copernicus himself could deny he believed it; he merely fashioned it in such a way that it was a hypothesis that would allow astronomers to correct mathematical errors they came across while observing the heavens. By writing in this fashion, Copernicus would have been able to deny that he himself believed in heliocentrism because he phrased it as nothing more than a hypothesis and as a result, would be able to slip past the Church's dislike of heliocentrism. Copernicus' theories are not fully formed, meaning there are several flaws that make the heliocentric hypothesis appear weak and ill-contrived. According to Giovanni Tolsani in 1546, a member of the Dominican Order, “almost all the hypotheses of this author Copernicus contain something false”5.) and he “seems unfamiliar with Holy Scripture since he contradicts some of its principles.”6.) Revolutions was not placed on the Index of Prohibited Books until 1616, seventy-three years after it was first published.7.) A censored version with some sections changed or omitted was released four years after it was prohibited.8.) It is possible that Revolutions was not banned immediately because of its hypothetical nature and weak arguments. However, Tolsani also wrote, a papal authority “had planned to condemn his [Copernicus'] book. But, prevented at first by illness, then by death, he could not carry out this [plan].”9.) After his death, the Church was heavily involved in the Council of Trent during the years 1545 to 1563 and other matters10.) . Thus, Revolutionsescaped prohibition for many years and eventually influenced Galileo Galilei, who read it and wrote on the subject himself.
The info you linked is quite interesting. I don't recall claiming you attacked the Catholic Church. I think you are confused about what official Church doctrine is, that is my main point. That is why the seven day thing was so puzzling. I still don't think geocentrism was ever official Church doctrine although, obviously this court claimed it was. I will have to read up a bit more on this.
ok, after further review this has played out somewhat like I expected although I have to admit the Pope was abusing his power here and did the Church no favors in this entire incident. The points to be made are that the Pope: -did appoint the inquisitors and instigate the trial -did want Galileo silenced -did succeed in getting Galileo to recant However, he did not speak "ex cathedra" on the matter. In addition, the Holy Office and those conducting the trial are not authorized to establish Church doctrine and/or dogma. Geocentrism has never been official church dogma regardless of what a show trial may claim. They railroaded Galileo into recanting but this does not automatically represent official Church doctrine. There are other steps necessary and those steps were never taken. from this site: http://socrates58.blogspot.co.at/2010/11/geocentrism-not-at-all-infallible-dogma.html Point #2: The decrees against Galileo were from Roman Congregations, approved only in forma communi. They were not papal decrees and therefore, all the more, were not immune from error. As I have already demonstrated, the 1616 and 1633 decrees concerning Galileo were not “papal decrees”. Period. They were issued by Roman congregations. A papal decree and a decree from a Roman congregation are two different things. No amount of cajoling can make one into the other. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the 1633 decree “did not receive the pope’s signature”.
He has already done this. A quick jog to your local library or perhaps reds ol go to google.com should do the trick.
Yeah, obviously I saw that after I had posted. I have already posted my answer regarding Galileo. The Holy Office is not authorized to establish dogma or doctrine. They were obviously incorrect in the ruling. I was assuming that they would not use the term heresy since geocentrism was not official doctrine. They did it anyway. A sad case yes, but it did not result in the establishment of Church doctrine. That does not fall under their jurisdiction.
