Francis Marsden Misrepresented Part of the Galileo Affair

Space on Quora

Catholic Apologetics

Francis Marsden

Mon

36 years a priest. Lived and studied six years in Rome.

What is the greatest scientific discovery that the church attempted to bury?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/What-is-the-greatest-scientific-discovery-that-the-church-attempted-to-bury?

This question gives the impression that the Catholic Church habitually tries to bury scientific discoveries, which is nonsense. [I can’t answer for the wilder and weirder extremes of American Protestantism and Fundamentalism]. Many great scientists have been Catholics or Christians of other denominations. The foundations of modern science and experimental method were laid in the cradle of medieval Christianity.

The Christian doctrine of One God who made all things in a rational manner, through His Logos or Word, provided the basis for a rational examination of nature. In the various forms of paganism, the sun, moon, stars, the sea and rivers, the plants and animals were all controlled by spirits. Investigating the sea might, for example, anger Triton or Neptune and have disastrous consequences - floods, tidal waves, shipwrecks. The gods had to be appeased or they could inflict disasters.

It is with churchmen like Roger Bacon, St Albert the Great, Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme, Nicolas de Cusa and others that basic ideas like motion and momentum and experimental method were worked out.

In 1543 a Polish Canon of Frombork cathedral, Nikolaus Kopernik, published his De revolutionibus ordium coelestium. The Pope and Cardinals of the time had previously shown interest in Copernicus’ theory, and encouraged him to develop his work on the heliocentric system.

It is not until 1616 that we come to Galileo Galilei and the clash between the Copernican theory and the Church authorities.

Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.

Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory. Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages.

In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to, teaching his theory as fact rather than as speculation. Worse, he had written a satirical play in which he parodied Pope Urban VIII (who had in fact been sympathetic to him) as Simplicius, a dim defender of the Ptolemaic system.

This is really the only instance in 2000 years in which the Catholic Church has ended up opposed to a genuine scientific advance. It was not at all clear how certain passages of Scripture were to be reconciled with the heliocentric theory, and with the protestant confrontation tearing Europe apart, the Catholic Church wanted to keep close to the literal words of Scripture.

We now realize better that “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Other than the Galileo case, the Catholic Church has only opposed scientific research in the rare cases where it is harmful to human beings e.g. unethical experimentation on human subjects, experimentation on human embryos, non-therapeutic genetic manipulation to create designer babies, human-animal hybrids etc.

Given that a considerable percentage of engineers and physicists, and some chemists, are engaged in military/defence work, researching how to kill their fellow human beings more efficiently and effectively, it is abundantly clear that science needs firm moral parameters if it is to benefit humanity.

Without moral rules, scientific progress is the advance from the caveman’s club to the hydrogen bomb.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

“Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.”

Sorry, they couldn’t have cared less if he was “unqualified” (except as an excuse), they cared about him being wrong.

“In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to,”

As far as I know, it is highly dubious whether he made such a promise.

There is at least one version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter to him which says he did not suspect him of heresy or exact any promise.

Francis Marsden

Mon

It was illegal for an unqualified layman to teach theology. St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that. It’s why he left Spain for Paris and signed up for a theology degree at the University there, in his thirties. Only when qualified would he be able to lead people in his Spiritual Exercises.

OK, Galileo wasn’t giving people Spiritual Exercises, but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no. You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own (cf Christopher Clavius SJ) - and on the other side, the Dominicans, in charge of the Inquisition, heresy-hunters and appointed guardians of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

“St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that.”

Simply one point in exegesis?

No.

The exact thing he could no longer do until he had studied theology was : distinguish (in individual, so to speak pastoral, cases) between mortal and venial sin.

Plus 30 days gaol is a very far cry from a lifetime after a process in house arrest seeing no strangers (except one or two Protestants who were as foreigners outside the Inquisitor’s competence, Milton comes to mind).

“but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no.”

Key thing : it’s about re-interpreting. Not about re-interpreting as an unqualified layman, but re-interpreting period.

The canon from session IV in Trent doesn’t say “unqualified laymen” cannot interpret unlike the Church Fathers did, it says one cannot - not even the Pope can, in principle - do so.

“You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own”

The point about his observations is, they were never condemned. He never had to recant “the Milky Way is composed of very small stars, very tightly packed” or “Jupiter has 4 Moons”.

Update

next day, Maundy Thursday.

Francis Marsden

Wed

Galileo’s punishment was comparatively mild. He spent a few months in the care of a friend, Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena in 1633.

In 1634 he was allowed to return to his own home, his villa at Arcetri. He could write, he could receive guests. His penance of reciting the Seven Penitential Psalms once each week was transferred to his daughter Maria Celeste.

He was allowed to go down into Florence for medical treatment. He went blind in 1638, continued to receive visitors, and died aged 77 on 8 Jan 1642.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Wait, no ban on visitors?

Someone seems to have misrepresented that part of the story then.

OK, I was wrong on how he was treated, I suppose.

That said, the judgement is as clearly for “content” and not for “competence” questions.

If St. Ignatius had said “nocturnal pollution was no mortal sin unless you basically invited it the day before by lewd thoughts or overeating” he would not have been told to abjure that just because he was so far not qualified to say such things (taking the answer from St. Thomas).

Galileo was required to abjure “the sun is immobile” and “earth moves in the third heaven above the sun and also by a daily motion”.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Noted one paragraph in your exposé:

"Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory."

Still none.

"Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies"

I don't think that fine ones were considered, his theory had discrepancies on tides.

"and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages."

Except Riccioli accepted the ellipses and maintained the Geocentrism. "Advantages" is not enough. Kepler also gave no proof.

Metrical Observations

Why Shakespeare Could Never Have Been French
22nd March 2021 | Tom Scott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUnGvH8fUUc

My comment:

I think you have a good, but historically superficial grasp of French prosody.

In Alexandrine verses, yes, the prosodic stress predominates so much that you do get half lines stressed at syllable six and no other rule applies hard and fast. However, lexical accent exists: "bon requin anodin" all have stress on the final syllable (and add up to six syllables, last of which is stressed), but "bonnes requines anodines" (supposing requin has a feminine form, which I think is false) all have stress on second to last syllable, and add up to nine syllables, with stress on the eighth, and so could not fit into an Alexandrine. Unlike modern pronunciation where they would be pronounced "bonn' requin' anodin' ".

There are two main ways of filling out the six syllables of a half line, namely iambic and anapaestic : six syllables is hard and fast, but you can either put lexical stresses on syllables 2, 4 and 6 or on syllables 3 and 6, all other versions being variants of these. This means that some writers of Alexandrines do in fact alternate quatrains, each having two rhymes masculine, two feminine, with one quatrain iambic (calmer) and one quatrain anapaestic (more lively). This type of placing of the "theoretical" word stresses would have no effect if the word stresses within the phrase didn't exist, at least as pronounced in scanned verses.

Plus sometimes, the natural phrasing would not recognise the two halflines without the word stress on the sixth syllable of the first one.

Now, you said "iambic pentameter" could not exist in French. It so happens, Chaucer introducing it had a model in Dante's meter, "endecasillabi" (eleven-syllabers), which ends in unaccented syllable, and so equals an iambic pentameter with feminine ending. In French you tend more to have masculine endings, and so speak of "décasyllabes". While both Italian and French have less prominent lexical stress than English, the meter works, because you divide it into half lines : 6 + 4(5) or 4 + 6(7). It sounds like Alexandrines, except either first or last halfline is two syllables shorter.

Shelley in fact did not observe strict iambic sequence in his pentameters, but you can more or less find any iamb in Prometheus Unbound (which I tried to read and failed to persist) exchanged for a troché, like:

x/ /xx/ /xx/
or
/xx/x/ /xx/

This makes Shelley's pentameter very like the original endecasillabi.

Narnian Reader Here

Q

For what age is the Chronicles of Narnia suitable?
https://www.quora.com/For-what-age-is-the-Chronicles-of-Narnia-suitable/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

There are two answers.

• Where will libraries and book sellers put it? I have seen “age 9 to 12”.
• What did C. S. Lewis intend and what has experience shown? He meant the Chronicles to be accessible to children, and at the same time very rereadable for adults. Considering the number of adults who do continue to enjoy the Chronicles of Narnia, arguably, he got what he intended. In other words, the indication given by libraries only means, someone below 9 may not understand it.

Babel / Göbekli Tepe Revisited

Plus one on more general post-Flood population.

Q I

How long was the Tower of Babel built?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-was-the-Tower-of-Babel-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

I have seen a note, I think it could have been from Historia scholastica, or St.Thomas (disputed authorship) Postilla in libros Geneseos, that it took 40 of the years after Noah died and before Peleg was born.

Peleg was born 51 years after Noah died in a Septuagint chronology without the second Cainan. In one with one, add another 128 years.

This fits well with Göbekli Tepe by carbon dates being given a span of 1000 years, between “9600 BC” and “8600 BC” if the C14 proportion to C12 was rising in the atmosphere by around 11 times faster production than now.

Note well,this is more like city than tower of Babel, the Hebrew text (with Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, KJ) does not say one ceased to build the tower, only one ceased to build the city. If the “tower” was a rocket project (which would have failed before very recently) it can well have been divided into several parts and transmitted culturally to our times (Chinamen inventing fireworks, Greeks speaking of a man ascending into the chariot of the Sun, Phaeton, and of Perseus and Andromeda with some others taken up to the stars, Babylonians, Egyptians, Stonehengians observing the stars and so on). If you take Babylon as 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E (c. 4°30′ both E and S of Göbekli Tepe), you have the inverse situation: the tower is stopped, but the city goes on.

Q II

Does the stupidity of the Tower of Babel story not disprove God? I mean you can’t build a tower past 7km.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-stupidity-of-the-Tower-of-Babel-story-not-disprove-God-I-mean-you-can-t-build-a-tower-past-7km/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Samuel Igali

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sat

Who says the project could have succeeded?

By the way, what about launching a tower up, then discarding bottom floor while launching some more, then middle floor and launching even more, then the top floor reaches the Moon? I mean, it is called a rocket now?

That project too could not have succeeded in Nimrod’s day. God interrupting the project would have given us the necessary time for things like finding appropriate rocket fuel and so on.

Q III

If you accept the Noah and the ark story, are all of us descended from Noah and his family inbreeding?
https://www.quora.com/If-you-accept-the-Noah-and-the-ark-story-are-all-of-us-descended-from-Noah-and-his-family-inbreeding/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

L. Stewart Hearl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sat

Yes, we are. As very few genetic faults were as yet around, this was not very dramatic.

Perhaps most dramatic, the Neanderthal part of the heritage on the Ark included genes predisposing for diabetes.

Contra Ratzinger, For Catholicism and Pope Michael

How Ratzinger Led to My Resignation As a Protestant Pastor w/ Dr. Scott Hahn
19th March 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzt_D8XociQ

Two comments near the beginning:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:51 "we can't just make the syllogism 'if it's Roman, it's wrong' " ...

You can't do that with anything. There can be, if you like "antipapacies" like pseudo-papal reigns, like that of the antipope from Barcelona in the Middle Ages (barcinonicum schisma in Malachy's prophecy), but there cannot be anything that is simply an "Antipapacy" as in opposite of the papacy.

You also can't make it like "if it's in Greek myth, it didn't happen" or "if it is in Norse Myth it didn't happen".

There are a lot of things this is done to, where it shouldn't. Protestantism taking the Papacy as an Antipapacy is however pretty emblematic of the attitude.

PM LM

"you can't do that with anything," but people do in fact do that as a way to dismiss Catholicism. Fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@PM LM I meant "can't" not about physical inability, but about obligation to good sense to do otherwise.

Satyan Nair

It's a lot like modern atheism. An atheist, traditionally, is expected to be a-theistic, or non-theistic, but today it's all about being anti-theistic, or anti-religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Satyan Nair True too.

One more reason to count Atheism as a Protestant sect.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:37 "Introduction to Christianity"

Nicknamed by some : introduction to apostasy ... I guess Scott Hahn's previous stance was fairly liberal.

But I'll admit, I haven't read the work, I only find the nickname credible because non-cardinal Ratzinger under Antipope Wojtyla in early nineties changed Catholic (or what passes for such) exegesis in basically banning the Fundamentalist approach.

A thing which had not happened back in 1984 - 1988 when I was converting. Perhaps because Siri was still alive, perhaps because Pope Michael was not yet elected ...

I'll admit I had gone somewhat hyper-ecumenical and was not myself reacting properly against the apostatic acts of Wojtyla in 1986. Hence I converted in a Novus Ordo parish, though a fairly conservative one.

Prasanth Thomas

Alright...shut up Sedevacantist

Israel Siqueira

"But I'll admit, I haven't read the work" LMAO

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Does sedevacantism have bad press in Goa or Pondichéry?

In fact, I adher to Pope Michael, so I am not really sede per se.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Israel Siqueira Did you get it I had read other things about Ratzinger, from later on, when he was supposed to be less modernist?

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am from neither God nor Pondicherry(Puducherry now)- I am from Kerala.

Dude, you are calling "Pope" a random lunatic Priest- one David Badwin- who is neither ordained Bishop nor is known by a single Cardinal

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Heretic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas I did not say Puducherry exclusively, I took Puducherry and Mumbai with Goa as examples.

He was ordained bishop in 2011, on Gaudete Sunday.

Being acquainted with cardinals and being bishop before papal election or conclave is not a requirement.

Being Catholic is.

Which brings me to what you are calling heresy in this context. What?

Besides, "lunatic" is a claim very convenient to make for some who want to stifle criticism against the Vatican II Sect.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "being....not a requirement"

Says who? You?

He lacks Apostolic Succession

"Being Catholic is"

For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant- as Protestant as the Anglican "Church"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Apostolic succession is from when one is consecrated bishop. He was that.

However, the Dominican position is, a bishop elect not yet consecreated, immediately has jurisdiction over the see.

Only sacramental acts have to wait till he's ontologically a bishop. They did from 1990 to 2011.

Here is a little list of Popes who were not bishops when elected:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Popes elected while not yet bishops :
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/08/popes-elected-while-not-yet-bishops.html

@Prasanth Thomas "For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant"

He would have been if he had tried sacramental acts before ordination and consecration, which happened in 2011.

He isn't.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, he repelled against the Church and set up his own

That makes him a Protestant

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas When "John Paul II" had visited a synagogue and prayed along with Muslims, Jews, Amerindians and Hindoos for peace, 4 years earlier, said "John Paul II" cannot be considered to have at that point represented the Church.

Opposing him was not rebelling against the Church.

Furthermore, all Protestantisms are united by further characteristics over and above rebelling against the Church, such as denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass, denial of seven sacraments (with some modification on this point by Anglicans, later on shared by Lutherans too), denial of necessity of Confession after falling into mortal sin (though Angllicans and Lutherans offer it).

This is not comparable to someone simply disobeying correct authorities of the Church, if "John Paul II" had been such.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Popes can commit sins- that doesn't take away their status

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Sin is one thing, sin against the faith (especially if never corrected) another.

A saint cannot be one who committed a huge sin and never repented.

This makes at least canonisation of "John Paul II" invalid and at least "Pope Francis" a non-Pope.

A man accessing papacy without being a Catholic is not accessing papacy. A pope falling into heresy (supposing that possible) immediately ceases to be Pope, but it is more probable he never was in the first place.

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We cannot simply judge it that way. And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs. And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name. So, there is no excuse.

And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas " And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs."

That is still making himself culpable of prayers to their false gods, since he was approving of their prayers.

"And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name."

Two. One with partial reversals, one which was not sudden. Miracles of healing have to be sudden without reversals.

"And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts."

Heard of the synod of Sutri?

Prasanth Thomas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl He had several miracles in his name. One healing from Coma- here near my place.

And, Sutri was never considered a legitimate Ecumenical Council by the Church- heard of Robber synods?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prasanth Thomas Yes, but Sutri was also not considered a robber synod either.

It's result was upheld.

Now, when we come to robber synods, why not consider Vatican II.

"One healing from Coma"

How suddenly? What type of damage caused it?

Either way, miracles are not enough if the doctrine is not apostolic.

Papal Infallibility, What Is It?

Q

Is a pope infallible from birth or does he acquire infallibility when he ascends to Papacy? If a Pope resigns, does he still remain infallible or does he lose his infallibility?
https://www.quora.com/Is-a-pope-infallible-from-birth-or-does-he-acquire-infallibility-when-he-ascends-to-Papacy-If-a-Pope-resigns-does-he-still-remain-infallible-or-does-he-lose-his-infallibility/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered just now

Neither from birth nor from ascension, but from using his office in a certain way, from after ascending papacy.

Precisely as St. Luke was not inerrant from birth, nor from becoming a disciple, but only when writing Gospel and Acts.

Inerrant is more than infallible, an infallible authority can be wrong on details, but gets the teaching through, an inerrant authority - that of hagiographers and of prophets - gets no detail wrong.

Comment

under other question, to someone who stated only Christ is without sin:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

We don’t believe Popes are impeccable, like Christ, like Mary, like all those already in Heaven.

Infallible means something else, a bit like the writers of Bible books were inerrant - when they wrote them.

If God can make St. Luke inerrant while he writes Gospel and Acts, He can make the magisterium collectively and its highest representative infallible (which is less than inerrant) when making the most important statements that are marked out as that most important level.

Troy, Mycenae, Homer - History

Q

Is Homer’s Iliad a primary source for Mycenae?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Homer-s-Iliad-a-primary-source-for-Mycenae/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

First of all, I do not accept the Weibull school’s definition of “primary sources” as only contemporary. If I did, it would not be one, since Homer lived c. 300 - 400 years after the events he described.

I accept sources as more or less reliable, and I consider Homer if fairly reliable, but with some caveats:

• not when he mixes later types of armour with those from Mycenaean times;
• probably his introduction of Corinth in Ship Catalogue is satire;
• probably some exploits are really not from Troy but from Kadesh, hence references to Egypt and to Ethiopia;
• Hittites would have been either recently or not yet ended as an Empire, and they are not mentioned;
• obviously, his theology is not the true one. But that is no criticism of his history as historic.

Now, you also said “for Mycenae”. In fact, the Iliad takes place mostly at Troy, but I do accept that Mycenae had a king called Agamemnon who led the armies before Troy. As his brother is king of Sparta, I take it Mycenaean Greece was more of one state and less of an accumulation of strictly independent city states. In fact, the idea in Ship Catalogue to rearrange men according to companies according to home origins may have been what started the trend towards the city states in Classic and Pre-Classic (Archaic) Greece.