FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Church, Galileo and a Flat Earth
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
“It is he [i.e. God] who sits above the circle of the earth.”
-Isaiah 40.22 

"He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."
-Job 26.7

"Another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10. This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round."
-The Universe Confirms the Bible Dr Jason Lisle 

Flat Earth

“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
-Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011

This article refutes the idea that early Christians believed the earth was flat.

“Neither Christopher Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers—even noted historians. Inventing the Flat Earth is Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s and then snowballed to outrageous proportions by the late 19th century.
-Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991

Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/ AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day
-Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal,, 13 February 2009 

The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) 
“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology. 
-Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997 

“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
And the leading church theologian of the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:

“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2

Orbs of medieval rulers

[Image: 6257Richard.jpg]
Figure 3: Richard II of England, coronation portrait, Westminster Abbey.
[Image: 6257HenryIII.jpg]
Figure 2: Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor (1017–1056), being presented with the orb of kingship.

[Image: 6257Coin.jpg]
Figure 3: Coin of the Byzantine emperor Leontius (d. 705)
Credit: CC-BY-SA Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
As early as the 5th century, medieval European kings carried a symbol called the globus cruciger, Latin for ‘cross-bearing orb’, as a Christian symbol of royal power. The orb, usually a golden sphere, represented the earth—hang on, a sphere representing a flat earth—something’s wrong here … oh that’s right, it was a spherical earth. It was topped by a cross to symbolise Christ’s lordship over the earth, and held by the ruler to symbolise that he had been entrusted to rule his lands. In medieval portraits, the scale didn’t indicate physical size but importance, hence the large size of the cross.

[Image: 6257HenryIII.jpg]


"shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’

"it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas"
-Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955
Here is a video of a woman reading this thread and also the other thread as regards Flat Earth foolishness...a rather very dead subject.

(11-13-2017, 10:10 AM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: [ -> ]Galileo

"shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’

"it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas"
-Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955

I have just read -   Once again the Galileo case is twisted and turned to suit the Modernist version of 'faith and science.' Here are a few of its theses:

Thesis 1. The Copernican system was well regarded by church officials

The Copernican system was not regarded well by the Church officials. The Copernican way of calculating the movements of celestial bodies belonged to the science of astronomy, and the Church officials had no problem with this system of calculation. The above suggests that Church officials had no problem with heliocentrism per se. They had, it was contrary to what the Bible says and how ALL of the Fathers interpreted it.
     The reason why the Church itself had no problem with Copernicus's book was because:

In its preface, entitled ‘To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,’ otherwise known as the ‘Ad lectorem’ introduction, it included the following:
‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only that they provide a correct basis for calculation… Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’

In other words Copernicus's heliocentrism was NOT presented as a truth, as the true order of the universe, because only the Bible can tell us that, but just a way of making certain calculations.

Thesis 2. Galileo was well regarded by the church

Yes he was, as an astronomer, not a theologian.

Thesis 3. Envy, not religion, was the trigger

Not 'envy', it was a philosophical denial by Aristotelian philosophers at first. Galileo responded by taking the subject into religion by saying the Bible COULD BE interpteted heliocentrically. In fact SHOULD be.

Thesis 5. Galileo refused to share discoveries

'Share his discoveries?' Arthur Koestler’s Sleepwalkers tells us that in 1609 Thomas Harriot made systematic telescopic observations of the moon at the same time or maybe before Galileo. Koestler also claims that Emperor Rudolph of Prague viewed the moon through a telescope before he even heard of Galileo. Be this as it may, history gives all such lunar discoveries to Galileo first, and only his 1610 book, The Starry Messenger merits a mention for these observations.
     Galileo’s telescope then showed him the phases of Venus that proved Venus turns around the sun, a fact; it must be said, accepted many years earlier by Tycho de Brahe and others even without verification. His most important sighting was of course the four starry-moons of the planet Jupiter.  Galileo named the four moons the ‘Cosimo’s stars.’

     Four years later, in 1614, a book on astronomy called Mundus Iovialis (The Jovian World) was published, giving a more accurate account of Jupiter’s four large moons. It was written by the German astronomer Simon Marius (1573-1624) - who got his telescope in 1608, one year earlier than Galileo – and this book claimed he had discovered the moons a little earlier than Galileo.
     Marius ignored the tradition of naming such discoveries after their patrons and called them Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, names that are used today rather than Galileo’s. Marius was accused by Galileo of plagiarism and his reputation suffered permanent damage, in spite of proof brought to light at the beginning of the 20th century that Marius’s research had been entirely his own.

Thesis 8. No need for proof ------- Fischer summarizes, ‘He did not have really convincing proofs such as the parallax shift or Foucault’s pendulum.

This infers that 'parallax shift or Foucault’s pendulum' were proofs for heliocentrism. This is tripe, they are not. This paper thus infers Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. Ever hear of Albert Einstein? He knew well that the Church was never proven wrong and its decree falsified.

Thesis 11. Galileo was a victim of personal circumstance
Thesis 12. Galileo was a victim of political circumstance

Galileo promoted heliocentrism after it was decreed to be formal heresy. I note not once in this essay did the term HERESY appear.

Thesis 14. Galileo did not reject his faith
Thesis 15. Galileo stood for science and faith

Faith that suited him, not the faith defined by the Church. Nor did he reject his heresy of heliocentrism from his heart. He kept promoting it until his trial when he lied, saying he never held it as a truth. For 300 years he has been credited with holding the 'truth' of heliocentrism. How can he be credited with it if he never believed in it?You cannot have your cake and eat it. Galileo wanted all to believe his version of the Bible, not the Church's geocentric version.

The problem is that Galileo's heresy was adopted by Catholic churchmen, the heretical reading of Scripture.