Galileo Revisited

Writing of the Bible - I, Theological Principle · Papal Divisions · Galileo Revisited

The Galileo Affair (with Chris Check)
The Counsel of Trent, 25 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjLUoIhEoLQ

3:59 "...from the very beginning of time, man's view of cosmos was geocentric"

Interesting admission, in the light of Mark 10:6 "from the beginning of creation" - are you saying that Adam and Eve were geocentrics?

That might make geocentrism part of the "Uroffenbarung" (the parts of revelation in Genesis 1 - 11 prior to Abraham's vocation) ... and therefore directly part of God's revelation.

"This just accords with natural observation."

Once again, a highly pro-geocentric statement.

John Fisher

I don't follow? Why would early humans believing something make it part of Genesis 1-11?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Fisher I said "the parts of revelation in Genesis 1 - 11 prior to Abraham's vocation" - and not "the text of Genesis 1 - 11" ...

Example "there is one God" would be part of it, and it is not in that text portion, and "there are many angels" would also be part of it and it is also not in that text portion.

The Uroffenbarung defines what Pagans had access to prior to becoming Pagans, and it sometimes leaves traces in the Paganisms.

I and Chris Check also didn't exactly say "early humans" but he said and I caught on to "from the very beginning of time, man" .... that would involve what Adam was thinking in paradise prior to the fall.

John Fisher

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still not clear on your meaning. What does it mean to be part of Genesis 1-11 but not in the text of Genesis 1-11?

From your first example, "there is one God", I thought that maybe are discussing what is accessible to human reason and common experience and therefore would be available to humans prior to Abraham's vocation - not actually having to do with Genesis 1-11 itself. But the second example doesn't seem to be something that is necessarily accessible to human reason, so I don't think I am right about that.

Night Yew

@John Fisher It sounds like he's talking about Genesis 1-11 as a period of time in human history. Adam and Eve may have learned certain things in Eden that weren't necessarily written down but taught orally until the time period in Genesis 11 when humanity started to adopt other beliefs. I have never heard this idea before, but this is what I think he means based on his comments so far.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Fisher In my original comment "in Genesis 1 - 11" refers to a section of the history of mankind, not to just or even primarily the (main) Bible text dealing with it. That's the exact reason why I further clarified "prior to Abraham's vocation" and in responses also clarified "what pagans would have had access to" (meaning as revelation) ...

There is one God was certainly in theory accessible to Adam through his reson, but he never needed to philosophise.

I am not saying a people cut off from that Uroffenbarung on that point cannot recover the truth by reason, or at least persons in it can, that would be against Church teaching, but I am saying when Amerindians speak of Manitu and Chinese of Heaven in ways that sound monotheistic, it is not because they figured it out by their reason, it is because they inherited from Adam and from Noah.

So, do Pagans descend from Adam? Yes. Do they descend from Henoch? Yes. Do they descend from people in the Cainite dynasty of Genesis 4? Probably yes, they were inlaws to someone on the Ark, but at the minimum, those on the Ark knew about them. Do pagans descend from Noah? Yes. Do pagans descend from people who clustered around and admired Nimrod? Usually yes. So, the pagans have access through their paganism to exactly as much revelation as was accessible to all of these taken together, minus what was deleted by forgetfulness and error, some of which come from the devil, some from the flesh and some from the world.

But the Biblical texts that deal with those eras, are the parts of Genesis 1 to 11 that start with Adam's creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Night Yew "as a period of time in human history."

Exactly.

"Adam and Eve may have learned certain things in Eden"

And later people may have learned more later on.

"that weren't necessarily written down but taught orally"

Basically yes. I am not excluding pre-Flood books like Henoch (which is pre-Flood if genuine), but Abraham had access via great-grand-pa Sarug teaching him orally, as with the history we have in Genesis 1 to 11.

"until the time period in Genesis 11 when humanity started to adopt other beliefs."

In German speaking countries, Uroffenbarung is a concept, and while most of humanity added other beliefs onto it, they did not necessarily lose all of it.

The one reason one can speak of paganisms as incorporating some truth is that pagans descend from people who had this Original Revelation if I dare so translate Uroffenbarung.

4:35 I think you have just mentioned Aristarchus or some other Pythagorean ... the Inquisition is going to speak of it as Pythagorean error.

5:15 "the Church adopted it as a model"

Going from mode "model" to mode "basically dogma" was actually in the Galileo-Foscarini affairs ... because they were investigating the Scriptural consequences of Heliocentrism.

And a Dominican in Florence blew the whistle about that.

5:18 "never taught it as doctrine"

whoa! 1633!

7:31 "it makes more sense"

Well, Copernicus was not advanced enough as a Mathematician to describe and appreciate the beauty of spirograph patterns.

It can be added, Copernicus did not write in the mid fifteenth century, he was born in the second half of it, 1473, and he started getting a really good foundation in astronomy, both as subject of the Quadrivium and by observations around the turn of the century.

So, Chris Check might do well to check his sources a bit ...

David Plummer

Maybe he meant 16th century?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidplummer2619 yeah, exactly

check his sources or his wording ...

my main point stands : he didn't appreciate spirograph patterns

7:46 Good pronunciation. And yes,[Tycho Brahe] was a Dane.

He was born in Scania, which after his time became Sweden, but was still Denmark.

However, when speaking of hybrid, it must be recalled it perfectly respects the two points of geocentrism that the Church upheld in the Galileo case, and it perfectly respects the priority of natural observation (including with a telescope).

The first pronunciation was the correct one. Later tries weren't.

8:38 Instead of describing Tycho's system, you have just described the Neo-Tychonian system used by Sungenis.

"all of the cosmos revolves around the Sun, except the earth"

No. Earth and Empyrean Heaven stand still.

Fix stars, Sun, Moon, revolve around Earth and below Empyrean Heaven.

Other parts of cosmos, i e the planets and asteroids, revolve around the Sun.

I make this distinction, because I differ from Sungenis about the fix stars. Why?

A) they revolve around earth, as part of a cosmic movement of the aether (prior to Tycho one would have believed in crystalline spheres, typically) which goes down even to the ground and the sea currents, we see it in the North Equatorial and South Equatorial currents across the Atlantic, in the Eötvös effect, in the Pendulum of Foucault, in Geostationary Satellites (which are basically surfing on the movement of the aether);
B) the movements apparent classified as "aberration" and "parallax" aren't that, they are proper movements, performed by angelic movers (probably also part of "Uroffenbarung" and hence common to Paganism, Judaism and Christianity, with exceptions), and as such give no clue to stellar distances. No clue that alpha Centauri is 4 light years away. This is my answer to the Distant Starlight problem some pose against YEC.

8:52 I am not sure he hasn't wavered, but Sungenis has at least at times held to Neo-Tychonian, with fix stars ALSO revolving around the Sun.

I do not, I think they move in straight circles around the Earth each stellar day.

9:18 "we live in this giant universe, filled with galaxies, that are all moving"

A) If you mean we physically do so, whatever we think, you are wrong.
B) If you mean we mentally do so, well, I do not.

meow meow meow

What?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@meow meow meow I said:

• the universe we actually live in is not a giant universe with galaxies that all move
• the world you mentally live in is not mine.

meow meow meow

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Have you published any arguments in this area?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@meow meow meow Yes, on my blogs.

If you meant in "peer reviewed publications" (like Nature) you overrate their Overton window.

Geocentrism and Angelic movers are outside their acceptance of even considering.

Ducky Momo

O gosh his scientific explanation are atrocious

meow meow meow

@Ducky Momo whose?

meow meow meow

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Genuinely curious: are you claiming that NASA is lying to us RE their data and space explorations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@meow meow meow By "data" - do you mean conclusions or direct observations?

I think they are wrong about lots of conclusions, including from space explorations, but right about observations.

If they are lying about anything, it's more like about Geocentrics, stamping all and sundry of us as conspiracy theorists. I hold it possible that NASA technically had the possibilities to fake moon landings, but it's absolutely not a priority, nor required by my positions. However, they have a kind of wizard of Oz like attitude "don't look behind the curtain" - which translates less unsubtly as "Geocentrics are conspiracy theorists who say we are lying about our data" ...

Is there no intellectual dishonesty conceivable to you other than direct lying, and if so, would my claim (if it had been such) be a lie? Or are you reserving error as a possibility only for less competent actors than NASA?

@meow meow meow plus you genuinely overlooked my previous comment, about Overton window. If you don't know the concept, look it up!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ducky Momo What is an atrocious explanation to you?

meow meow meow

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn’t overlook it. We’re just on different wavelengths. Peace ✌️

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@meow meow meow Indeed.

On my wavelength it should be obvious, if I think they have the wrong Overton window, it kind of exonerates them from being liars.

9:43 Point taken. One part of Galileo's and Copernicus' Heliocentrism is not part of modern cosmology.

However, Newton was not the first with it, you had Bruno before him stating relative Heliocentrism - in a giant universe with thousands of solar systems.

10:34 Whether or not there are 70 that suggest a Geocentric model, there are two that basically tie it down.

1) Habacuc referring to Joshua 10 states the Sun and Moon stood still "in their orbits" - i e, not just phenomenologically.

2) In Joshua 10, before verse 13 which by itself could be phenomenological about what happened, you have verse 12, which says that Joshua's miracle working words were adressed to Sun and Moon, not to Earth. If what happened is that Earth ceased rotating, this would make Joshua 10:12 the only time in the Bible and even in Church history after the Bible that a miracle worker has been mistaken about what to adress and even so worked a miracle.

The first of these finds, I credit Sungenis, the second, I credit what I found.

Jack Daw

Yes this is an honest opinion that doesn't skirt around what the church claimed about Scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jack Daw Thank you.

Some of us still claim it. I do.

11:16 "middle of the 19th C." ?

If you mean the Bessel observation of "parallax" in the 1830's, it is not the kind of parallax that St. Robert and Galileo were discussing in the 1616 trial of Galileo's Saggiatore (in which only the book, not the author was on trial).

IF the fix stars are a sphere, like inner side of the surface of a ball, then the Earth moving within that sphere would show as a pretty uniform parallax. All of Virgo would get smaller as we approached Pisces (Virgo would be hidden in the Sun as it is anyway when we are in Pisces) and all of Pisces would get smaller as we approach Virgo (while Pisces is hidden by the Sun when we are between Sun and Virgo).

With a very much non-uniform parallax:
a) either the parallax is not parallax, but some kind of proper movement
b) or the fix stars are not a sphere (with consequences against the Empyrean Heaven beyond it).

What happened is, the mindset was already prepared in 1830's to accept proofs for Heliocentrism, and they took it as that, forgetting Angelic movers ...

bandie9101

so did they observe any kind of parallax in the 17ths?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@bandie9101 No, but they discussed what was clearly a different thing from what was eventually observed in for instance 1838.

I don't argue against "Galileo didn't have a proof" but against "we found a proof since his time."

11:37 No. Galileo gathers no evidence whatsoever for Earth orbitting Sun.

He does gather evidence against some positions held by Geocentric scientists, like Ptolemy having said there could only be epicycles of the first order, and Galileo showing Jupiter had moons, and if Jupiter had epicycles of the first order, Jupiter circling an epicentre circling Earth, then Jupiter's moons would obviously describe epicycles of the second order, which Ptolemy had held to be impossible. But showing one particular very famous Geocentric System or Model wrong, is different from showing Geocentrism wrong.

11:55 "not just because the Bible said so"

It becomes an affair for the Inquisition, with Saggiatore, and with a work by Foscarini, precisely because the Bible said so.

Copernicus personally incurred no censorship, because he left the Bible alone.

Galileo and Foscarini start getting books into trouble, and Galileo later himself, because it starts to involve exegesis.

So, St. Robert Bellarmine's beef with Il Saggiatore (The Assayer in English) starts precisely because the Bible says so, namely the opposite of what Galileo and Foscarini are saying.

12:32 "the Church has never been closed to new discoveries about the natural world"

Please note : when they really are discoveries, which involves them not contradicting the Bible.

You can't discover anything about the creation which contradicts the word of the Creator.

12:59 Chris Check doesn't actually quote, but refers to that ultra quote mined quote.*

Here is the actual quote:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;"

He actually never says "too literal" but he does say "for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics" - and what exact topics? Cosmological and calendar knowledge that he "holds to as being certain from reason and experience."

St. Augustine is speaking of Flat Earth or saying the year has 364 days precisely. In Ethiopia it may have looked likely a century or two, if this is how their text was for the Book of Henoch, in the Northern parts of the Roman Empire it would have shown very quickly in equinoxes shifting days around the year. In a specific date shifting shadows on a sundial.

So, it's not about too literal a reading, but about readings or exegeses actually not from Scripture that are just presumed to be Scriptural - something Chris Check already admitted is not the case here (70 passages confirming Geocentrism).

14:06 "The council of Trent has made it clear that exegesis is the job of the Church"

You are referring to the second decree of session IV. The relevant paragraph is:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."

It says that:

• the Church is the sole judge on exegesis
• and that it is forbidden to do exegesis contrary to the sense that the Church, note, it doesn't say simply "doth hold" but it says "hath held and doth hold" ...

The reliance on the own skill is a usual preliminary to presuming to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense that the Church traditionally still holds, but it is not a sufficient cause for condemnation according to this decree.

A layman may propose an exegesis, and then it is for the magisterium to judge whether it goes contrary to what the consensus was over the centuries.

14:24 If Galileo had had a less rhetoric and more logic education in the 13th or 14th C. he would presumably not have jumped to conclusions like he did.

If he had, though, at least Bishop Tempier is likely to have condemned him, and St. Thomas is likely to have argued against him, just as Tempier condemned and St. Thomas argued against Sorbonne Averroism.

15:18 Bellarmine supposedly saying "it is possible what you are observing in the night sky is the physical reality, but you haven't given us the proof of this"

I would like a good source (better than Chris Check is orally) for this being the exact quote.

None of what Galileo observed is condemned. None of what was condemned was other than Galileo jumping to conclusions from what he observed, but without his actually observing it.

For the observation, St. Robert had Clavius repeat the observations through a similar telescope to Galileo's or the same one.

It doesn't sit well with me to have St. Robert Bellarmine arguing against something directly observed. Unless he was ironic about Galileo "observing" Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun. Which obviously he hadn't.

15:29 "and until you do, the Church has a duty to be sensitive to the sensibilities of the faithful"

This is very probably spurious. I would really like a source for this.

It's clear that Chris Check is paraphrasing as to what he thinks St. Robert's words amount to.

Miguel Tavares

Bellarmine's quote and others are quoted and bibliographicaly referenced at Bellarmine's Wiki entry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Miguel Tavares Thank you.

In this case, I may suspect a wiki entry was redacted with a bias, so, I'll be careful to look up the references.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Miguel Tavares I looked it up, and right now I cannot find this one:

"it is possible what you are observing in the night sky is the physical reality, but you haven't given us the proof of this"

Trent Horn and Chris Check seem less than fully credible, when one of them attributes a quote from Galileo to Cardinal Baronius. There was one deleted reddit reference figuring a meme for Baronius, and there were quite a few entries for the quote being from Galileo's letter to I think Christine of Pisa. One of them has been changed. But it still involves "Galileo's statement"

Miguel Tavares

@Hans-Georg Lundahl More credible than Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Pierre Durham would be impossible and they all refer to "Galileo’s opponents" behaving "more rationally" and to "Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a “strict proof”

**I think that you are aware that talk usually is not committed in writing, letters are

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Miguel Tavares I was not the least disputing St. Robert was a better scientist.

But he wouldn't have been if he had referred to "what you have observed is not proven" ... which is a fair resumé of how the guy on the video (I forget who was talking at that point) resumed it. On the contrary, he did precisely the right thing and asked Clavius to repeat the observations.

And none of the actual observations were condemned in either case.

@Miguel Tavares "talk usually is not committed in writing, letters are"

Baronius is not around, we cannot ask what he said.

If he said it orally and we know it, it should be known through a source that wrote it down.

Miguel Tavares

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Thomas Kuhn's book explains everything in an easily understandable language. And since he was a Jew he had no incentive to be supportive to the cause. Dissimilarity it's called.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Miguel Tavares I was not in the least disputing Thomas Kuhn's book.

I was disputing Trent Horn's quote, or if it was Chris Check's quote.

I will believe your quote:

"Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a “strict proof”

Indeed he did. That quote actually is in the wiki on Bellarmine. And he added, in absense of one, we stay with Bible and Church Fathers, and I could add, and with the prima facie witness of our senses.

That's precisely what I do. Heliocentrism has not been strictly proven, therefore I remain a Geocentric.

15:29 I wonder if it's a paraphrase of the letter to Foscarini. Here cited from a site** by Dr. Jeff Mirus:

"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

"Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances [e.g., explain certain calculations, etc.], and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers."

Here we are doing three things different from Chris Check's pseudo-quote.

A) St. Robert is not equating "demonstration that the earth is in the third heaven" (above the centre) with what Galileo (or possibly Foscarini) saw;
B) St. Robert speaks of no duty to "sensibilities of the faithful" but to "Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers" - please take note, modernists!
C) St. Robert distinguishes between Heliocentrism accounting for appearances and Geocentrism being radically incapable of it - please take note, Science believers!

16:01 Well, the concern is legitimate. To a point.

Some people do believe the Bible teaches a Flat Earth, reject the Bible and lose their souls.

But even with a legitimate concern, the concern that was on St. Robert's mind was not people thinking the Bible was wrong, but people interpreting the Bible wrongly, due to Galileo and Foscarini bypassing the Church Fathers.

So, is there a limit to the concern? Yes. We are not to reinterpret the Bible to suit a prejudice promoted by Scientists without any actual demonstration that is logically valid.

This is what St. Robert didn't want back then. This is also what I do not want now.

16:08 "it's easy to make these imprudent leaps, if you don't academically qualify your thesis"

The utterance is clearly over-reliant on what Academia is by now ....

16:54 St. Robert Bellarmine doesn't say "by your own methods you have not demonstrated it" - but he did say in essence "you have not demonstrated it" ...

He is not deferring to Galileo's supposed method as a supposed scientist. He is saying demonstration involves two ingredients:

A) observation
B) logical concluding

He is also saying that from neither does Galileo have a demonstration for Heliocentrism. And he is not the least deferring to "scientific method" or to "scientific community" on this point. He's stating it as a requirement over and above what academia or scientists may practise and over and above what academia or scientists may presume as epistemological strategy.

17:24 "probably the orbits are elliptical" (Check referring to Kepler's advice)

The condemnations by St. Robert of the book and by Inquisitors put in place by Pope Urban, of Galileo, neither of them show that circular vs elliptical orbits have any bearing on the case.

Chris Check is pushing what the somewhat dubious convert from Freemasonry, Joseph de Maistre, was suggesting ... that with more modern methods, Galileo could and would have demonstrated his case, and been exonerated, but was foolhardy enough to rely on his primitive methods.

He is also pushing what was suggested to Pope Pius VII in the Settele case - that the Church hadn't condemned any Heliocentrism involving elliptic orbits.***

17:39 "he wasn't a friendly guy, he liked to set people up"

• Do you have any evidence to this external to this dispute?
• Supposing he were what you describe, this is not a reason for lifelong house arrest, or for being forced to abjure two theses you have held dearly to.

In Catholicism, unlike modern psychiatry, rights and truth are objective. They are not to be tailored to the purpose of teaching one grumpy man a lesson!

Plus the verdict from 1633 was sent to Catholic Universities around the world.

18:33 The question is, what do we want to get the Church off the hook from?

From being wrong back then? Well, the way to go is, Galileo was wrong.

From being wrong in relation to what we know?

That's another kettle of fish, it presumes we know it. And makes it vital that the Church didn't put real doctrinal onus into the case.

What about from being evil back then? Or now? Are you on the right track?

21:35 "he's a great fundraiser"

Contrary to the theory stating he blew it by being a character whom one couldn't collaborate with or sth like that ....

23:21 One comment probably was from the future Pope Urban:

"It was in the power of God to create the world any way He wanted to, and to make it appear any way He wanted to"

Galileo makes this a comment of Simplicio.

It is kind of easy to make fun of if you put it in a certain context.

"Oh, you mean, God could make the world Geocentric and make the evidence look Heliocentric? Is that why we find so much evidence for Heliocentrism and you still think it's Geocentric?"

No. God is not dishonest.

It means, God could make the world look, prima facie, the way it was. The way it is.

God could make a Geocentric world so that it looked Geocentric at first glance.

The other options (related to this controversy) would be:
God could make the world Geocentric and look Heliocentric.
God could make the world Heliocentric and look Heliocentric.

Problem with these - the world doesn't look Heliocentric.

Or - the other real option - God could make the world Heliocentric and look Geocentric (at first glance).

Which one of these attributes more honesty to the Omnipotent God?

The one in which He created the universe that was what it looked like, namely the physically Geocentric universe.

24:09 Did St. Robert Bellarmine ever tell Galileo that his observational evidence suggested Heliocentrism?

I'd like, again, to have that quote, if it's there.

25:00 "the pope who had been Galileo's friend .... he is pushed beyond the limits of what he wants to endure personally"

A very succinct statement of the theory you are giving, and attributing a condemnation of two theses to that, (while we should not be forgetting the theses as such were already condemned by St. Robert Bellarmine, previous round) is to paint the manners of Pope Urban VIII in a very dark light. I mean, Rembrandt's chiaroscuro in Conjuration of the Batavi would arguably be too light and rosy for this ...

Also, the Pope could not see this as a public insult. The Catholic world at large didn't have more of Pope Urban than "his encyclicals" and any other papal acts, didn't have his conversations with Galileo, for example, so, there was no public insult to the person of the Pope, since Urban VIII had no twitter account, his private thoughts weren't put on display. For that reason, the work was also not an attack on the papacy.

The only things the world of Christendom could reasonably care about, which is what Pope Urban had a duty to care about is, these things:

• is it true or false that "it was in the power of God to create the world any way He wanted to, and to make it appear any way He wanted to"?
• is it true or false that the Sun is immobile centre of the world?
• is it true that the Earth is in orbit (in the third heaven) around (above) the Sun?

25:15 Galileo could have shown more friendship and charity?

As in a gentleman of Rome was thinskinned like a sophomore before his professor, and Galileo should have seen that?

Have you thought through what you are saying about Pope Urban?

Are you trying to make Joseph Stalin look good, by putting him in Pope Urban's company?

26:56 Ah, now I get where you are heading with "Galileo gathered his best evidence after condemnation" ...

Galilean relativity, how does it feel to be aboard a plane ... but that is :

• not evidence for Earth actually moving - it's just evidence for "things would look the same if the Earth were moving" which is a very different proposal
• he arguably did not himself directly use it even that way
• and it was not new, Oresme had already stated that not just the ocular evidence but also that for the inner ears (where we have the equilibrial sense - he may not have known about inner ears though, just about the sense!) could be the same if Earth were moving. But he had also stated that this possibility in and of itself is not evidence for earth moving.

In other words, of two models which both account for the sense data, the one that closest adhers to them is preferable, unless there is positive evidence for the other scenario, or against the sense data of that particular case.

"It was in the power of God to create the world any way He wanted to, and to make it appear any way He wanted to"

God could make a Geocentric world so that it looked Geocentric at first glance.
Or - the other real option - God could make the world Heliocentric and look Geocentric (at first glance).

We know all of us, the world doesn't look Heliocentric at first glance.

So, where is the evidence for the greater discrepancy between sense data and reality?

Neither flatly contradicts the sense data or says we should be seing sth else. But one of them has physical reality (what God chose to create) match our senses (what God wanted us to experience). The other has them at a kind of mismatch.

29:30 Freemasons obviously make both Bruno and Galileo "martyrs for science" in a sort of Martyrologium Anti-Romanum

They peddle it right and left. And some of their audience confuse the two.

Bruno did burn, and he burnt after being judged by St. Robert.

30:29 The late Pope Michael, and a booklet from before Vatican II he reedited disagrees with you.

Decrees against Heliocentrism by nine popes (including 1633 Pope Urban VIII).

Also, Sungenis argues when you make this argument, you are confused about exactly what to expect from an infallible statement.

One could argue it was the infallible ordinary magisterium. He sent out the judgement to all Catholic Universities, so interested bishops were able to consult it at a distance. None of them we know of disagreed and said "Galileo was right" ...

31:17 St. Augustine actually doesn't use the actual words* "let's not interpret Scripture too literally"

He was not that kind of diffident about literal exegesis (when good as such) being vindicated when tested against reason and experience.

Also, that passage was not made Church law. As far as I know it was not appealed to in the verdict, either of St. Robert's trial on The Assayer or of the Roman Inquisition 1633.

31:46 The state of the science at the time is not actually appealed to.
The "problem of scandal" is not appealed to in relation to unproven theories as simply unproven or exegeses as simply unpopular.

There would have been a different theological censure for that "piis auribus offensiva" .... the actual censures are formally heretical for one thesis and "at least erroneous" for another one.

What is appealed to is:

• Scripture, which hasn't changed
• Fathers, which also haven't changed.

33:01 If the affair had rested with only the tribunal and the punitive consequences for Galileo, the doctrinal statements would not have been infallible, it would just have been a verdict of the Church in a particular case.

NOTE HERE : Ephesus could be doctrinally infallible even if possibly wrong about the person of Nestorius. Chalcedon could be doctrinally infallible even is possibly wrong about the person of Eutyches (Ephesus II said "non haereticus, sed male locutus est" but it is usually considered a Robber Council in the West). Trent could be doctrinally infallible even if Calvin or Luther never held a single of the condemned doctrines.

So, even for a disciplinary affair, the doctrinal side is not negligible.

But, if it had only rested there, it would not have been infallible.

However, Pope Urban further ordered the condemnation sent out to Catholic scholars of all Christendom. All bishops who wanted had access to it. None what we know stood up and disagreed and said Heliocentrism or Geokinetism are OK to hold, or that phenomenological readings of Joshua 10:13 are OK as an exegesis.

That probably makes it infallible, the infallible ordinary magisterium, but at the very least puts it into the scope of infallibility.

33:44 Obviously, it is still not safe to teach that the Gospel of Mark was written first.

It is still in contradiction with the actual traditions about the text.

Again, Galileo's judges did not condemn him for a disciplinary offense against "teaching" (what as a layman he was anyway not doing) what "tute doceri non postest" ... they condemned the teachingS as for one of them formally heretical, for the other at least erroneous.

34:07 No. The analysis of similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke do not amount to historical observations, the actual text history we have is Matthean priority from the Church Fathers.

So, no, there is no valid "historical" observation in teaching Markan priority, and it was not just condemned because some went too far.

Here we have the act from 1912, June 26.°

V. Utrum, quoad ordinem chronologicum Evangeliorum, ab ea sententia recedere fas sit, quae, antiquissimo aeque ac constanti traditionis testimonio roborata, post Matthaeum, qui omnium primus Evangelium suum patrio sermone conscripsit, Marcum ordine setundum et Lucam tertium scripsisse testatur; aut huic sententiae adversari vicissim censenda sit eorum opinio quae asserit Evangelium secundum et tertium ante graecam primi Evangelii versionem esse compositum?

R. Negative ad utramque partem.

It's not lawful (fas) to recede from the ancient and constant tradition saying after Matthew first, then Mark second, then Luke third are testified as having written.

The words are not "it is not safe to teach" but "utrum fas sit" and "negative" ...

34:43 Whether or not Caesar Baronius said that,

• he probably did not do it in the context of a pastoral letter
• since he was cardinal priest, not ever bishop.

I'd like to have the exact and full quote ...

And when I search it - it is from Galileo, who was condemned for precisely that attitude, not from Baronius.°°

35:01 Neither in respect to Markan priority, 1912, nor in the Galileo case 1633, can we assume the Church overreacted.

36:07 Newman pointed out, and Chesterton took up on it, that Galileo is the one stock argument.

But if you analyse the words of Cardinal Newman, it involves saying Galileo did not do science.

There is also a certain hint that new astronomy, in his time, like Bessel, might turn out not to be real science, at least as he presented his case.

36:51 In the case of Lyell, ("breakthrough in geology") there came to be three schools all of which were Catholic throughout the 19th C, and defended as such:

• six days were six days, and the light of the first day was created soon after the beginning of time (Bosizio et al.)
• there was a considerable gap between the beginning of time and the state in Genesis 1:2, but from then on, six days were done to re-create the earth
• the days were long ages but from Adam on, the creation day 6 is finished and Biblical history goes on with at least approximately Biblical chronology from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5, Flood, Genesis 11 (well known proponent : Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux).

As to Darwin's work, it was pretty instantly condemned in a local Council of Cologne, and Pope Pius IX did not rescind it.

It is very annoying when people who talk about "discoveries in science" talk about big world view questions like cosmology, evolution, deep time, as opposed to clear actual discoveries, like electromagnetism, blood circulation, spectrography, white light being breakable into a spectrum of coloured lights, these being what the musical spectrum would consider "one octave" (bluest blue has twice the frequency of reddest red), behaving like waves ...

37:01 Nicolas Steno first made dissections (including refuting Descartes' solution to the dualism problem), then founded modern geology and then became a convert and a clergyman, dying as bishop, as Apostolic Vicar, missionary bishop in Protestant regions where Catholics were oppressed minorities, I know Danes who want to see him canonised.

What you leave out, and Geologists on Creation Ministries International point out°°° is, he was actually a Flood Geologist.

He believed and taught as sound science that the bulk of the fossil bearing sediments had been deposited during Noah's Flood.

Exactly as John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.

37:04 Gregor Mendel - a man whose work Darwin could have accessed, and didn't.

My mother, a solid YEC, taught me Mendel's laws.

Rev. Bryan Houghton, a trad priest of the Ecclesia Dei persuasion, just before he died, considered Mendel and chromosomes were good refutations of Evolution theory.

37:12 who was an Augustinian friar

My bad, I had given him as Benedictine ... it says OSA on the wiki ...

My discord name is QSAnimazione#4236

Rev. Houghton was completely wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@My discord name is QSAnimazione#4236 OK,
how do you explain the rising number of chromosomes in mammals?

You are aware that mammals have different chromosome numbers, that chromosomes can increase in number if telomere to telomere contact becomes a new centromere, replacing two centromeres, and that tetraploidy means certain death in mammals, while trisomies are aggravated and therefore more handicapping by becoming tetrasomies?

38:16 So, you are basically saying that "John Paul II" was beating the mea culpa on the breast of Urban VIII?

38:43 But Pope Urban VIII hadn't been publically humiliated by Galileo!

At the utmost, he had been privately humiliated by a public statement by Galileo (putting his argument into Simplicio's mouth).

Supposing I feel privately humiliated by you giving your view on the Galileo case, which you know I don't exactly share, and your doing so in a manner suggesting you thought I needed some schooling on the matter. This doesn't equate to me getting a right to a public apology even for the slight, because none of your viewers so far (5.6 k views) would normally be aware of my position or how you treated it. Even if you had lampooned a thing I had actually said, it wouldn't give me any right to a public apology (other than if you admitted the hint was at me), and even less could I revenge myself by charging you with a crime which could land you in deep trouble, and impose grave social disabilities on you for the rest of your life. And which were only due to some other factor, if correct, but would be monstruous if directed at the slight you had made me.

So, you are painting Pope Urban VIII as basically a brother in arms when it comes to extremely toxic narcissism to Joseph Stalin.

Even Hitler wouldn't have done such a thing to Charlie Chaplin, he actually enjoyed the barber chair scene of The Dictator.

39:51 While we are at "he's not a heretic either" - that is technically correct.

It's even morally correct. But not from how you presented this.

It's correct because:

• he abjured when asked to
• and finally accepted his abjuration as according to objective truth, as we know from a letter written c. one year before he died.

In it, he actually cited the argument put into Simplicio's mouth.

"It was in the power of God to create the world any way He wanted to, and to make it appear any way He wanted to"

It seems he finally grasped the implication : God being truthful created the world the same way as he created its appearance to us, and not the other way round.

_______________________________________

* Link to where I quoted it:

Creation vs. Evolution : Unanimity of Fathers - and Venerable Bede
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/unanimity-of-fathers-and-venerable-bede.html

Chris Check brings it up twice, so this footnote is to two of my comments.

** Link, and perhaps it's just the page and not the site which is by Jeff:

Catholic Culture : St. Robert Bellarmine, Galileo and Heliocentricity
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | Sep 17, 2015
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/st-robert-bellarmine-galileo-and-heliocentricity/

*** Credits to Robert Sungenis for Pius VII having no access to the actual acts of the trial, since Napoleon had stolen them.

° DE AUCTORE, DE TEMPORE COMPOSITIONIS ET DE HISTORICA VERITATE EVANGELIORUM SECUNDUM MARCUM ET SECUNDUM LUCAM
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19120626_vangelo-marco_lt.html

°° More than one hit on Galileo, for instance:

The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.

GALILEO GALILEI (by Norwegian Atheists on FB)
https://www.facebook.com/NorwegianAtheists/photos/galileo-galileithe-bible-shows-the-way-to-go-to-heaven-not-the-way-the-heavens-g/555867854834108/

The statement, “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”, was made by Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642 in his open letter to the Dowager ...

Quora : What does “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go” mean?
https://www.quora.com/What-does-The-Bible-shows-the-way-to-go-to-heaven-not-the-way-the-heavens-go-mean

(Answer two years ago by William Bradshaw
I'm a longtime Christian and student of the Bible. Author has 1.1K answers and 139.8K answer views - he seems to have edited it since then, see following screenshot)

(It is still "Galileo's statement" and not Baronius')

A deleted reddit hit on Baronius:

"The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." -Cardinal Caesar Baronius [1872×1102 pixels]
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/9iry1x/the_bible_teaches_us_how_to_go_to_heaven_not_how/

It was a meme [1872×1102 pixels], and the author deleted it:

Désolé, cette publication a été supprimée par son auteur.

°°° Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Journal of Creation 22(1):93–98, April 2008
https://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist