Regarding Galileo and his "martyrdom"

[tharkûn]

What part of he recanted do you not understand?

The part where said recantation in any matter, shape or form mentioned his views on the "source of ultimate truth". He made a weasel word filled recantation, so much so that Toricelli held he had not really recanted.

Yet Torricelli himself (and Descartes) were very careful to avoid that hot potato.
So it worked.

What were they doing before? About nothing. What were they doing after? About nothing. Both men still held with Copernicanism and the printing presses, particularly the Dutch ones, printed Copernican works in increased volume as the trial had made interest in Copernicanism soar.

Toricelli himself is more afraid of following in Bruno's footsteps than Galileo's.

Copernicus's book was condemned in 1616, or maybe it was not clear from the quotes I posted

Yes Copernicus's book went to the censors in 1616, however at Bruno's trial his heliocentrism was condemned.

See Gil Hamilton's post.

And as you pointed out, Galileo's trick did not work, because de facto he ridiculed that doctrine.
He was not very subtle by putting it into the eternal loser Simplicio's mouth.
Galileo tried to get away with it and failed.

Which is what pissed off the pope, his words in the eternal loser's mouth.

This is exactly the opposite of Galileo's position.

Bellarmine and Galileo had differing views on the center of the universe, that has never been in dispute so please desist with the red herring.

Where they AGREE is that if evidence of heliocentrism can be produced then it would NECESSARILY require a reinterpretation of scripture. Does Bellarmine think this will happen? No. Does Galileo have any evidence that would press the issue? No at best he has the phases of Venus which are explained quite well by Brahe's system or by modifying the epicycles of the Aristilean system. Is there evidence against Galileo's position? Yes parrallax is not observed and the only Copernican friendly explanation requires a universe beyond the bounds of the average man's imagination.

However the point remains the Inquisition hold's Galileo's position about what to do when observation and scriptural interpretation contradict. They may hold it as an escape clause, they may hold it as a derided last resort - but they still hold it. Which then brings to mind how a lay man can be charged for holding a position the Inquisition itself holds - no matter how reluctantly or distant they hold it.

Galileo himself was not a real threat, but his position was.

You mean the one he copied from St. Augustine?

They did not care about the observations.

BS. In 1611 the Inquisition reads Galileo's works and they call in the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano to certify the science and math. The Jesuits disagree with Galileo's interpretation of the data, but they validate the data and because of that Galileo is honored by induction into the Lincean Acadamey. While still in Rome Galileo advocates the Archimedian interpretation about bodies in water, the future Pope Urban VIII is impressed by the evidence and sides with Galileo.

If the Church had condemned heliocentrism because it did not agree with observations, they would have admitted that observations overrule scriptures, which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

No they would have have to admit that their interpretation is wrong, which is what Bellarmine said as a last resort. Which the Catholic Church had done in times past, for instance noting that Jesus was born in 4BC.

You claim that the observations supported geocentrism (Tycho's model), as opposed to heliocentrism (Coperincus's theory).
Yet the Church condemned heliocentrism because it was contrary to the Scriptures.

What happened was a comittee of consultants, call the Copernican theory "foolish and absurd in philosophy". They declared that the idea of a sun centered universe to be "formally heretical" and the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to be least "erroneous in faith".

This was not a binding decision, and it was well known to the literate that such opinions could be overruled for instance by a church council or by the pope himself. In short the 1616 ban had built in escape clauses that were later exercised.

Let me spell it out for you: the Church did not accept that observations overrule the authority of the Scriptures.

Let me spell it out for you the Church held that observations overruled human interpretation (minus major church councils and the pope speaking under special rules). At the time in question there was no compelling evidence to overrule to interpretations of the council, and so the Church banned anyone who disagreed with their interpretation.

Frankly if Galileo was attacking the very foundation of the church - how in hell did Dialogue pass the Chruch censors not once but twice? Don't you think the censors who did change the wording and phrasing would have noticed a massive threat to the very authority of Catholicism and banned the book then? But let guess you beleive the censors didn't recognize a massive threat to the authority of the Church when they saw one

So you concede now that heliocentrsim was condemned because contrary to the Scriptures, not because unsupported by observations.

I conceded that heliocentrism was condemnded because it was contrary to their interpretation of the Scriptures and was unsupported by observations.

In the abscences of compelling evidence to the contrary they were going to stick to their interpretation. In 1616 the best arguement for heliocentrism is the phases of Venus, which a Tychonian model predicts as well. At best heliocentrism and geocentrism were equivalently backed by evidence, which meant to the Church that there was no compelling reason to reinterpret scripture.

So, care to back up any of your assertions?

You're kidding me. You've never read about this?

At the palace of the usual residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine and in the chambers of His most Illustrious Lordship, and fully in the presence of the Reverend Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O.P. and Commissary General of the Holy Office, having summoned the above-mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal warned Galileo that the above-mentioned opinion was erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately, before me and witnesses, the Most-Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same Galileo acquiesced in this injunction and promised to obey.

Done in Rome at the place mentioned above, in the presence, as witnesses, of the Reverend Badino Nores of Nicosia in the kingdom of Cyprus and Agostino Mongardo from the Abbey of Rose in the diocese of Montepulciano, both belonging to the household of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal.

This was the main charge the Inquisition tried to slap on Galileo - that he violated the hold, defend, or teach order in writing. The above letter is not signed, which directly violated Inquisitorial procedure and is contradicted by a signed and notarized copy retained by Galileo (which was in Bellarmine's own handwriting to boot). If, as you suggest, Galileo was a direct challenge to the church why forge evidence? His views on the role of evidence in the interpretation of the scripture were well known, and the above letter adds nothing to that charge.

Did the Inquisition write Galileo's books?

Yes. Galileo, like any good Catholic author, sent his manuscripts to the censors who could either prohibit publication or rewrite sections. In the case of Dialogue the Church censors did a few small rewrites.

No, and his books were all the evidence they needed.

So why forge the quoted letter?

I see that you are unfamiliar with his works, because in his dialogues he shreds to pieces geocentrism, even if heliocentrism is hold as an hypothesis for the sake of discussion.
Galileo had not been particularly subtle about it.

Galileo shreads to peices the outdated Aristilean model and doesn't even bother to attack the Tychonian model which is better than his circular heliocentric model.

I don't see anything that supports your position.
Galileo had been warned in 1616, and kept quiet for a while.
Then he thought that his connection would protect, but he was wrong.
And a seventy years old man was subjected to trial.

In 1618, two years after the Inquisition Galileo writes about the astronomy of comets. Galileo attacks the Jesuit position.

In 1619 he escalates this disagreement by writing to Archduke Leopold.

In 1624 Galileo writes "Letter to Ingoli" refuting Disputation on the place and stability of the Earth, against the system of Copernicus.

Mind you those only cases where documented evidence has survived. Galileo was allowed to challenge the Jesuits, refute Ingoli's critique and generally make his abrasive case on numerous occassions. Possibly that is because he had the protection of the Pope, however it is only after publication of Dialogue, three years after it went to the censors, that the hammer falls at the request of the Pope.

Descartes did not publish his Il Monde because of that, and Torricelli avoided the issue of heliocentrsim.

Funny I thought it was because of Bruno.

So it was not Galileo who wrote the Dialogues, but the Inquisition!
Fame and glory to you, if you can back up that claim.

In may of 1630 Galileo goes to Rome to clear the publication of Dialogue with the friggen secretary of the Vatican. The censors in both Rome and Florence make some rewrites but allow the book to be published. Yes the Inquisition did write small bits of the book and the sure as hell read the entire damn thing before publication. Somehow NEITHER censor managed to see a direct challenge to Church authority

So, why was heliocentrism condemned as contrary to the Holy Scriptures in 1616?

Because that was the opinion of the counsel called to decide upon the issue. No new evidence requiring reinterpretation had surfaced.

And Galileo's position being "far from unique" does not prove that it was not the reason for the trial.

This is the Catholic Inquisition, why weren't the other adherents called to trial? Why not bring all the potential challengers to Chruch authority in and require them to recant in mass?

Maybe it's because other people shared this position, that the Church felt it necessary to condemn it.
Would there have been a Reformation if nobody had listened to Martin Luther?

Yes. Luther was merely the last in a long line of dissenters. Hus more or less took over Bohemia a century prior was not widely listened to and was burned at the stake on the same grounds. The problems of the Catholic Church were what caused the Reformation, not Luther talking about them.

[/i]

[Il Saggiatore]

What part of he recanted do you not understand?

The part where said recantation in any matter, shape or form mentioned his views on the "source of ultimate truth". He made a weasel word filled recantation, so much so that Toricelli held he had not really recanted.

Galileo's recantation:

But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves: ...

(bolding mine)
Oh look: "the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture", not "the said doctrine is contrary to observations".
Again, the heliocentric doctrine is condemned because contrary to the Holy Scripture.

Yet Torricelli himself (and Descartes) were very careful to avoid that hot potato.
So it worked.

What were they doing before? About nothing. What were they doing after? About nothing.

You are an ignorant twat!
Torricelli

At the Jesuit College Torricelli showed that he had outstanding talents and his uncle, Brother Jacopo, arranged for him to study with Benedetto Castelli. Castelli, who like Jacopo was a Camaldolese monk, taught at the University of Sapienza in Rome. Sapienza was the name of the building which the University of Rome occupied at this time and it gave its name to the University. There is no evidence that Torricelli was actually enrolled at the university, and it is almost certain that he was simply being taught by Castelli as a private arrangement. As well as being taught mathematics, mechanics, hydraulics, and astronomy by Castelli, Torricelli became his secretary and held this post from 1626 to 1632. It was an arrangement which meant that he worked for Castelli in exchange for the tuition he received. Much later he took over Castelli's teaching when he was absent from Rome.

There does still exist a letter which Torricelli wrote to Galileo on 11 September 1632 and it gives us some very useful information about Torricelli's scientific progress. Galileo had written to Castelli but, since Castelli was away from Rome at the time, his secretary Torricelli wrote to Galileo to explain this fact. Torricelli was an ambitious young man and he greatly admired Galileo, so he took the opportunity to inform Galileo of his own mathematical work. Torricelli began by Galileo Galileo that he was a professional mathematician and that he had studied the classical texts of Apollonius, Archimedes and Theodosius. He had also read almost everything that the contemporary mathematicians Brahe, Kepler and Longomontanus had written and, he told Galileo, he was convinced by the theory of Copernicus that the Earth revolved round the sun. Moreover, he had carefully studied Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican which Galileo had published about six months before Torricelli wrote his letter.

It was clear from his letter that Torricelli was fascinated by astronomy and was a strong supporter of Galileo. However the Inquisition banned the sale of the Dialogue and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. After Galileo's trial in 1633, Torricelli realised that he would be on dangerous ground were he to continue with his interests in the Copernican theory so he deliberately shifted his attention onto mathematical areas which seemed less controversial. During the next nine years he served as secretary to Giovanni Ciampoli, a friend of Galileo, and possibly a number of other professors. We do not know where Torricelli lived during this period but, as Ciampoli served as governor of a number of cities in Umbria and the Marches, it is likely that he lived for periods in Montalto, Norcia, San Severino and Fabriano.

Descartes

By 1628 Descartes tired of the continual travelling and decided to settle down. He gave much thought to choosing a country suited to his nature and chose Holland. It was a good decision which he did not seem to regret over the next twenty years.

Soon after he settled in Holland Descartes began work on his first major treatise on physics, Le Monde, ou Traité de la Lumière. This work was near completion when news that Galileo was condemned to house arrest reached him. He, perhaps wisely, decided not to risk publication and the work was published, only in part, after his death.

[...]

Descartes was pressed by his friends to publish his ideas and, although he was adamant in not publishing Le Monde, he wrote a treatise on science under the title Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences. Three appendices to this work were La Dioptrique, Les Météores, and La Géométrie.

Both men still held with Copernicanism and the printing presses, particularly the Dutch ones, printed Copernican works in increased volume as the trial had made interest in Copernicanism soar.

Toricelli himself is more afraid of following in Bruno's footsteps than Galileo's.

Feel free to provide evidence for your claims.

Copernicus's book was condemned in 1616, or maybe it was not clear from the quotes I posted

Yes Copernicus's book went to the censors in 1616, however at Bruno's trial his heliocentrism was condemned.

Bruno

At this point Bruno decided to write down his ideas and this he did in three dialogues on cosmology and three dialogues on morality. His ideas on cosmology are quite remarkable for he not only argued for a moving Earth, but he also argued for an infinite universe containing other stars like the Sun and other worlds like the Earth. Of course Bruno was aware that this contradicted the Biblical version of the universe, but he put forward the same argument as Galileo would some years later, namely that the Bible should be seen as providing moral teaching, not the teaching of physics. In his writings Bruno also argues that Christianity is a religion which is held through faith, not through philosophical or scientific reasoning.

Bruno also attacked Aristotle's physics in these works and, after he returned to Paris in October 1585, these views were to land him in trouble again. We should comment by way of explanation that due to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, Aristotle's philosophy and physics had become absorbed into Christianity. By the time Bruno returned to Paris the atmosphere had changed. The tolerant face which he had experienced before had gone and in its place there were struggles between the various religious factions. Bruno was never one to keep his head down, and he lectured publicly opposing the views of Aristotle. He also attacked a young Catholic mathematician Fabrizio Mordente, publishing four dialogues which made fun of Mordente's views. Bruno was forced to leave Paris and he went to Germany where he travelled around the universities lecturing on his beliefs, and attacking the views of mathematicians and philosophers.

His teachings that different Christian Churches should be allowed to coexist and that they should respect each others views does not look to our eyes a major crime but it did not go down well in the religious climate which then prevailed. His teachings of peace between churches led to his being excommunicated from the Lutheran Church in January 1589 while he was in Helmstedt. He remained in Helmstedt where he wrote a number of texts and poems on what can best be described as mathematical magic but, like so much of his work, they contain some remarkable insights among the magic, including an atomic theory for matter. Bruno went to Frankfurt in 1590 where he hoped to publish these works but was not welcome in the town. He lived for a while in a Carmelite convent and continued to lecture on his views.

[...]

Involved in discussions with those who shared his views that investigation of natural philosophy should be possible even if it led to ideas which were not accepted by the Church, he was an obvious target for the Venetian Inquisition which had him arrested on 22 May 1592. He had always advocated "Libertas philosophica" - the freedom to think and to make philosophy. A trial was set up at which Bruno defended his right to hold views on the nature of the universe which, he claimed, were not theological. It appeared that his line of argument was going to win the day, but at this point the Roman Inquisition demanded that he be sent to Rome to be tried by them.

In January 1593 Bruno arrived in Rome and his trial began which was to drag on for seven years. At first Bruno defended himself with the same arguments as he had used when tried by the Venetian Inquisition. The Roman Inquisition, however, declared that his views on physics and cosmology were theological and demanded that he retract. Bruno answered quite honestly that he did not know what he was being asked to retract, trying to convince the Inquisition that his views were in accord with Christianity. Pope Clement VIII demanded that Bruno be sentenced as a heretic and the Inquisition passed the death sentence on him.

And as you pointed out, Galileo's trick did not work, because de facto he ridiculed that doctrine.
He was not very subtle by putting it into the eternal loser Simplicio's mouth.
Galileo tried to get away with it and failed.

Which is what pissed off the pope, his words in the eternal loser's mouth.

He ridiculed the doctrine according to which Man cannot reach true knowledge about because it would bound God's omnipotence and omniscience.
Throughout the dialogue, Galileo argues in favour of heliocentrism, against the warning he recieved in 1616.

This is exactly the opposite of Galileo's position.

Bellarmine and Galileo had differing views on the center of the universe, that has never been in dispute so please desist with the red herring.

Where they AGREE is that if evidence of heliocentrism can be produced then it would NECESSARILY require a reinterpretation of scripture.

Then you can explain why heliodcentrism was condemned because it was contrary to the sacred scriptures, without any reinterpretation to accomodate new observations

Does Bellarmine think this will happen? No. Does Galileo have any evidence that would press the issue? No at best he has the phases of Venus which are explained quite well by Brahe's system or by modifying the epicycles of the Aristilean system. Is there evidence against Galileo's position? Yes parrallax is not observed and the only Copernican friendly explanation requires a universe beyond the bounds of the average man's imagination.

However the point remains the Inquisition hold's Galileo's position about what to do when observation and scriptural interpretation contradict.

1633 Papal condemnation

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

[...]

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

(bolding mine)
Can you read? No chance for new observations to change the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

They may hold it as an escape clause, they may hold it as a derided last resort - but they still hold it. Which then brings to mind how a lay man can be charged for holding a position the Inquisition itself holds - no matter how reluctantly or distant they hold it.

You are wrong, and I showed where.

Galileo himself was not a real threat, but his position was.

You mean the one he copied from St. Augustine?

If you are able to comprehend what you read, the Church holds the sacred scriptures as the ultimate source of truth about the natural world.
What Augustine said is irrelevant.

They did not care about the observations.

BS. In 1611 the Inquisition reads Galileo's works and they call in the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano to certify the science and math. The Jesuits disagree with Galileo's interpretation of the data, but they validate the data and because of that Galileo is honored by induction into the Lincean Acadamey. While still in Rome Galileo advocates the Archimedian interpretation about bodies in water, the future Pope Urban VIII is impressed by the evidence and sides with Galileo.

And in 1616 the Copernican theory is condemned: 1616 admonition.

If the Church had condemned heliocentrism because it did not agree with observations, they would have admitted that observations overrule scriptures, which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

No they would have have to admit that their interpretation is wrong, which is what Bellarmine said as a last resort. Which the Catholic Church had done in times past, for instance noting that Jesus was born in 4BC.

So you can explain this:

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

No room for a new interpretation of the Scriptures.

You claim that the observations supported geocentrism (Tycho's model), as opposed to heliocentrism (Coperincus's theory).
Yet the Church condemned heliocentrism because it was contrary to the Scriptures.

What happened was a comittee of consultants, call the Copernican theory "foolish and absurd in philosophy". They declared that the idea of a sun centered universe to be "formally heretical" and the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to be least "erroneous in faith".

So you actually read the Papl Condemnation!
But obviously you did not understand it.
Why didn't you provide a link and a quote? Were you afraid that providing the quote in context would not support your claims?
(It would not be the first time you try to use an quote out of context.)

This was not a binding decision, and it was well known to the literate that such opinions could be overruled for instance by a church council or by the pope himself. In short the 1616 ban had built in escape clauses that were later exercised.

You mean, like this?

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

Oh look, "in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine" and "declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture".
What happened to the escape clause?

Let me spell it out for you: the Church did not accept that observations overrule the authority of the Scriptures.

Let me spell it out for you the Church held that observations overruled human interpretation (minus major church councils and the pope speaking under special rules). At the time in question there was no compelling evidence to overrule to interpretations of the council, and so the Church banned anyone who disagreed with their interpretation.

And, as the Papal Condemnation spells it out, heliocentrsim was condemned once and for all because contrary to the Holy Scripture (not to the current interpretation of it).
Thus, the Church overrules any future observation that might support heliocentrism with the autority of its sacred scriptures.

Frankly if Galileo was attacking the very foundation of the church - how in hell did Dialogue pass the Chruch censors not once but twice? Don't you think the censors who did change the wording and phrasing would have noticed a massive threat to the very authority of Catholicism and banned the book then? But let guess you beleive the censors didn't recognize a massive threat to the authority of the Church when they saw one

You must be under the delusion that a bureaucratic organization is always 100% efficient.
It did not occur to you that the Church recognized the threat from Galileo's books once they started circulating and being discussed?
Can you tell before publication how popular a book will be and how it will be received?

So you concede now that heliocentrsim was condemned because contrary to the Scriptures, not because unsupported by observations.

I conceded that heliocentrism was condemnded because it was contrary to their interpretation of the Scriptures and was unsupported by observations.

So you can explain why they condemned heliocentrism once and for all, as contrary to the scriptures, even against future observations.

In the abscences of compelling evidence to the contrary they were going to stick to their interpretation. In 1616 the best arguement for heliocentrism is the phases of Venus, which a Tychonian model predicts as well. At best heliocentrism and geocentrism were equivalently backed by evidence, which meant to the Church that there was no compelling reason to reinterpret scripture.

They did not condemn it because the observations did not agree with it.

So, care to back up any of your assertions?

You're kidding me. You've never read about this?

The 1616 Admonition, as reported in 1633:

At the palace of the usual residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine and in the chambers of His most Illustrious Lordship, and fully in the presence of the Reverend Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O.P. and Commissary General of the Holy Office, having summoned the above-mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal warned Galileo that the above-mentioned opinion was erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately, before me and witnesses, the Most-Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same Galileo acquiesced in this injunction and promised to obey.

Done in Rome at the place mentioned above, in the presence, as witnesses, of the Reverend Badino Nores of Nicosia in the kingdom of Cyprus and Agostino Mongardo from the Abbey of Rose in the diocese of Montepulciano, both belonging to the household of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal.

Very cute.
You must have missed where it says "the above-mentioned opinion was erroneous", based on this assesment

Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith.

{Signed}

(bolding mine)
So, it was considered erroneous because contrary to the meaning (literal and interpreted) of the scriptures.

This was the main charge the Inquisition tried to slap on Galileo - that he violated the hold, defend, or teach order in writing. The above letter is not signed, which directly violated Inquisitorial procedure and is contradicted by a signed and notarized copy retained by Galileo (which was in Bellarmine's own handwriting to boot).

Irrelevant.
Galileo admitted in his 1633 depositions that he knew about the condemnation of heliocentrism:

Holy Office: Since, as he says, he came to Rome to be able to have the resolution and the truth regarding the above, what then was decided about this matter.
Galileo: Regarding the controversy which centered on the above-mentioned opinion of the sun's stability and earth's motion, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.

If, as you suggest, Galileo was a direct challenge to the church why forge evidence? His views on the role of evidence in the interpretation of the scripture were well known, and the above letter adds nothing to that charge.

They did not forge Galileo's books, which was all they needed.
And the letter is irrelevant.

Did the Inquisition write Galileo's books?

Yes. Galileo, like any good Catholic author, sent his manuscripts to the censors who could either prohibit publication or rewrite sections. In the case of Dialogue the Church censors did a few small rewrites.

Thank you for proving that you do not understand what you read.
See above about the efficiency of the Church's bureaucracy.

No, and his books were all the evidence they needed.

So why forge the quoted letter?

IRRELEVANT!

I see that you are unfamiliar with his works, because in his dialogues he shreds to pieces geocentrism, even if heliocentrism is hold as an hypothesis for the sake of discussion.
Galileo had not been particularly subtle about it.

Galileo shreads to peices the outdated Aristilean model and doesn't even bother to attack the Tychonian model which is better than his circular heliocentric model.

IRRELEVANT!
He was not condemned because he did not support the Tychonian model, but because he supported a theory which had been condemned based on the authority of the Scriptures.

And even if you are right about this point, Galileo would still have been victim of the Church trying to impose its own science on the researchers, instead of letting them discuss ideas without restrictions.
Which is the reason Galileo is considerd a martyr.

I don't see anything that supports your position.
Galileo had been warned in 1616, and kept quiet for a while.
Then he thought that his connection would protect, but he was wrong.
And a seventy years old man was subjected to trial.

In 1618, two years after the Inquisition Galileo writes about the astronomy of comets. Galileo attacks the Jesuit position.

In 1619 he escalates this disagreement by writing to Archduke Leopold.

In 1624 Galileo writes "Letter to Ingoli" refuting Disputation on the place and stability of the Earth, against the system of Copernicus.

Mind you those only cases where documented evidence has survived. Galileo was allowed to challenge the Jesuits, refute Ingoli's critique and generally make his abrasive case on numerous occassions. Possibly that is because he had the protection of the Pope, however it is only after publication of Dialogue, three years after it went to the censors, that the hammer falls at the request of the Pope.

And your point being what?
That scientists with the right connections had a better chance to get away with discussions against the Church's position? (Oh look, Kepler!)

Descartes did not publish his Il Monde because of that, and Torricelli avoided the issue of heliocentrsim.

Funny I thought it was because of Bruno.

You already proved that you are an ignorant twat.

So it was not Galileo who wrote the Dialogues, but the Inquisition!
Fame and glory to you, if you can back up that claim.

In may of 1630 Galileo goes to Rome to clear the publication of Dialogue with the friggen secretary of the Vatican. The censors in both Rome and Florence make some rewrites but allow the book to be published. Yes the Inquisition did write small bits of the book and the sure as hell read the entire damn thing before publication. Somehow NEITHER censor managed to see a direct challenge to Church authority

See above about your delusions of a 100% efficient bureaucracy.

So, why was heliocentrism condemned as contrary to the Holy Scriptures in 1616?

Because that was the opinion of the counsel called to decide upon the issue. No new evidence requiring reinterpretation had surfaced.

And as the Papal Condemnation explicitly says, new observation will be disregarded, since heliocentrism had been condemend once and for all as contrary to the Scriptures.

And Galileo's position being "far from unique" does not prove that it was not the reason for the trial.

This is the Catholic Inquisition, why weren't the other adherents called to trial? Why not bring all the potential challengers to Chruch authority in and require them to recant in mass?

See above about your delusions of a 100% efficient bureaucracy.

Maybe it's because other people shared this position, that the Church felt it necessary to condemn it.
Would there have been a Reformation if nobody had listened to Martin Luther?

Yes. Luther was merely the last in a long line of dissenters. Hus more or less took over Bohemia a century prior was not widely listened to and was burned at the stake on the same grounds. The problems of the Catholic Church were what caused the Reformation, not Luther talking about them.

Fair enough. Bad example.

[tharkûn]

Oh look: "the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture", not "the said doctrine is contrary to observations".
Again, the heliocentric doctrine is condemned because contrary to the Holy Scripture.

In the Counter Reformation Catholic period interpretation of scripture is reserved for the cleregy. Once they have made a determination, and they did include observation in some determinations, the lay man was bound by it.

I'm still not seeing this grand "observation trumps scripture" heresy you allege.

Very cute.

Nothing cute about it. That document was brought forth by the Inquisition in an effort to convict Galileo. It is not signed. It contradicts a signed and notarized copy evidenced by Galileo. If Galileo was an admitted challenge to basic Church authority why use evidence that doesn't follow the rules of the Inquisition itself?

Put another way, if this is an open and shut case, with a brutal death penalty for such heresy to boot, why bother with forgeries?

They did not forge Galileo's books, which was all they needed.

Then why introduce the letter? Then why not prevent the book from passing the censors?

And the letter is irrelevant.

Yes the Inquisition had an open and shut case upon just about the most henious charge one could be brough up in Counter Reformation Cathlocism ... and hell let's forge this letter because we have such a strong case it's completely irrelevent

IRRELEVANT!

Oh look somehow all caps is supposed to disguise the fact that you have no reply.

He was not condemned because he did not support the Tychonian model, but because he supported a theory which had been condemned based on the authority of the Scriptures.

And even if you are right about this point, Galileo would still have been victim of the Church trying to impose its own science on the researchers, instead of letting them discuss ideas without restrictions.
Which is the reason Galileo is considerd a martyr.

My contention has always been WHY Galileo was a victim of the Church. Because of the laughable ascertion that he challenged the authority of the Church, or because he insulted the man in the big hat. The former requires the Inquisition try him for holding the same theology as its own cardinal's last resort and further requires not one but two incompotent censors, and finally an Inquisition with an allegedly open and shut case to stoop to forgery

And your point being what?

For whatever reason Galileo was not brought before the Inquisition 1624. In 1633 that changes, the church censors as well as the Secretary of the Vatican pass Galileo, yet the Pope (and I think himself, if not his office) takes issue with Dialogue. It couldn't possibly be because the most holy pontiff was pissed at being played as an idiot? No the theory requiring vast ineptitude in the Inquisition, censors, and other assorted officials (like say Galileo's publisher who could be held responsible for printing flagrant heresy and you know burned at the stake) is the simpler one

You already proved that you are an ignorant twat.

Hey Toricelli why don't you publish?
Because I'm afraid of being forced to recant and live out my life in a palatial estate.

Hey Toricelli why don't you publish?
Are you nuts? They BURN people like that at the stake.

This isn't a sophisticated era, cowing people was done in a simple and direct fashion. Killing Galileo, or at least locking him away or seizing property like most other Inquisition victims, would have been far more of an effective deterrant.

And as the Papal Condemnation explicitly says, new observation will be disregarded, since heliocentrism had been condemend once and for all as contrary to the Scriptures.

The Papal Condemnation can say whatever it damn well wants, the only escape clause proof documents coming out of Catholicism would be the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra or definition decrees of ecumenical councils. The Papal Condemnation is neither and CAN be overruled by newer decrees. It falls under the class of authentic Magesterium at the highest, far lower than either Universal Magisterium or Extraordinary Magesterium.

Not surprisingly after the course of time exactly this happened, a new decree removed Dialogue, as well as most all the other heliocentric works, from the Index.

See above about your delusions of a 100% efficient bureaucracy.

No I'm stating they were >50% efficiency obviously. Everyone from Galileo's publisher to both censors the Secretary of Vatican could be dragged before the Inquisition themselves for their role in spreading obvious heresy - challenging the authority of the Church was possibly the biggest crime one could make in Counter Reformation Catholicism. Not only does it boggle the mind that NO ONE who read, edited, published, or rewrote Dialogue noticed a glaring challenge to Chruch authority, why were NONE of these individuals hauled before the Inquisition for their role in the propagation of rank heresy?

Questioning the authority of the Chruch was something that started wars and lead to interdiction. Copernicanism was merely "erroneous". The Inquisitorial response to everyone else involved in publishing Galileo's work is much more in line with hatchet job on Galileo than a serious challenge to authority.

In any event the Church does cite observation, at least obliquely in the Papal Condmenation:
"Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith. "

But remember folks Church censors who held the very souls of the faithful in their hands, not to mention their own lives and well being, were merely inefficient and failed to noticed a major challenge to Church authority. This inefficiency also extended to the Secretary of the Vatican and Galileo's publisher. Of course the Inquisition saw this inefficiency and decided to do nothing to anyone except confining the author to house arrest

[Il Saggiatore]

Oh look: "the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture", not "the said doctrine is contrary to observations".
Again, the heliocentric doctrine is condemned because contrary to the Holy Scripture.

In the Counter Reformation Catholic period interpretation of scripture is reserved for the cleregy.

Once they have made a determination, and they did include observation in some determinations, the layman was bound by it.

I'm still not seeing this grand "observation trumps scripture" heresy you allege.

I urge you to learn to read:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

[...]

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

(bolding mine)
Heliocentrism is condemned because contrary to the Holy Scripture.
Also, the last paragraph pre-empts any re-interpretation of the Scripture in favor of heliocentrsim

(whether there are new observations or not).
Whether heliocentism the observations or not, is not even considered.

Galileo's position that true knowledge about the natural world can be obtained from observation, is in

conflict with an authority that overrules any future observation with the authority of a sacred text.

Very cute.

Nothing cute about it. That document was brought forth by the Inquisition in an effort to convict Galileo. It is not signed. It contradicts a signed and notarized copy evidenced by Galileo. If Galileo was an admitted challenge to basic Church authority why use evidence that doesn't follow the rules of the Inquisition itself?

Put another way, if this is an open and shut case, with a brutal death penalty for such heresy to boot, why bother with forgeries?

You are clearly under the delusion that that letter had any weight in the trial.
They did not need that letter to put Galileo on trial.

Galileo's Dialogue

Several years ago there was published in Rome a salutary edict which, in order to obviate the dangerous tendencies of our present age, imposed a seasonable silence upon the Pythagorean opinion that the earth moves There were those who impudently asserted that this decree had its origin not in judicious inquire, but in passion none too well informed Complaints were to be heard that advisers who were totally unskilled at astronomical observations ought not to clip the wings of
reflective intellects by means of rash prohibitions.

Galileo publicly admitted that he knew the 1616 edict that condemned heliocentrism.
Throughout the same book he argues in favor of heliocentrism:

Upon hearing such carping insolence, my eal could not be contained Being thoroughly informed about that prudent determination, I decided to appear openly in the theater of the world as a witness of the sober truth. I was at that time in Rome; I was not only received by the most eminent prelates of that Court, but had their applause; indeed this decree was not published without some previous notice of it having been given to me. Therefore I propose in the present work to show to foreign nations that as much is understood of this matter in Italy, and particularly in Rome, as transalpine diligence can ever have imagined Collecting all the reflections that properly concern the Copernican system, I shall make it known that everything was brought before the attention of the Roman censorship, and that there proceed from this clime not only dogmas for the welfare of the soul, but ingenious discoveries for the delight of the mind as well.

To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every artipee to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless –not, indeed absolutely, but as against the arguments of some professed Peripatetics. These men indeed deserve not even that name, for they do not walk about; they are content to adore the shadows, philosophizing not with due circumspection but merely from having memorized a few ill-understood principles.

(bolding mine)

They did not forge Galileo's books, which was all they needed.

Then why introduce the letter? Then why not prevent the book from passing the censors?

And the letter is irrelevant.

Yes the Inquisition had an open and shut case upon just about the most henious charge one could be brough up in Counter Reformation Cathlocism ... and hell let's forge this letter because we have such a strong case it's completely irrelevent

You clearly missed the preface to Galileo's Dialogue, where he admits knowing about the 1616 edict.
Whether the letter presented at the trial was forged or not, is entirely irrelevant, because everything the Inquisition needed is in Galileo's books.

IRRELEVANT!

Oh look somehow all caps is supposed to disguise the fact that you have no reply.

I see that I have to spell it out for you: "IRRELEVANT! Because... [insert the lines that followed]"

He was not condemned because he did not support the Tychonian model, but because he supported a theory which had been condemned based on the authority of the Scriptures. And even if you are right about this point, Galileo would still have been victim of the Church trying to impose its own science on the researchers, instead of letting them discuss ideas without restrictions.
Which is the reason Galileo is considered a martyr.

My contention has always been WHY Galileo was a victim of the Church. Because of the laughable ascertion that he challenged the authority of the Church, or because he insulted the man in the big hat. The former requires the Inquisition try him for holding the same theology as its own cardinal's last resort and further requires not one but two incompotent censors, and finally an Inquisition with an allegedly open and shut case to stoop to forgery

I do not see anything to back up your claims.

Let's if this makes sense:
By insulting the "man in the big hat", Galileo lost his protection, hence the Inquisition could put him on trial for supporting heliocentrism, which had been condemned because contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
Galileo was convinced that observation can give true knowledge about natural world, in conflict with the traditional authority of theology and philosophy. He was convinced that observations supported heliocentrism, and he presented it as such in his works. Hence he disobeyed the 1616 edict by supporting the condemned doctrine of heliocentrism.

Three principal headings are treated First, I shall try to show that all experiments practicable upon the earth are insufficient measures for proving its mobility, since they are indifferently adaptable to an earth in motion or at rest. I hope in so doing to reveal many observations unknown to the ancients. Secondly, the celestial phenomena will be examined strengthening the Copernican hypothesis until it might seem that this must triumph absolutely. Here new reflections are adjoined which might be used in order to simplify astronomy, though not because of any necessity importeded by nature. In the third place, I shall propose an ingenious speculation. It happens that long ago I said that the unsolved problem of the ocean tides might receive some light from assuming the motion of the earth. This assertion of mine, passing by word of mouth, found loving fathers who adopted it as a child of their own ingenuity. Now, so that no stranger may ever a who, arming himself with our weapons, shall charge us with want of attention to such an important matter, I have thought it good to reveal those probabilities which might render this plausible, given that the earth moves.

(bolding mine)
Can you read?
Galileo shows that he is convinced that experiments are valuable in understanding the natural world.
Also, he is convinced that the observations are so compellingly in favor of heliocentrism, that it should be true absolutely (which is exactly what was prohibited in 1616).

And your point being what?

For whatever reason Galileo was not brought before the Inquisition 1624. In 1633 that changes, the church censors as well as the Secretary of the Vatican pass Galileo, yet the Pope (and I think himself, if not his office) takes issue with Dialogue. It couldn't possibly be because the most holy pontiff was pissed at being played as an idiot? No the theory requiring vast ineptitude in the Inquisition, censors, and other assorted officials (like say Galileo's publisher who could be held responsible for printing flagrant heresy and you know burned at the stake) is the simpler one

No, the theory is that by insulting the Pope, Galileo lost any protection from the Inquisition.
And that the Inquisition realized the extent of Galileo's heresy once the book started circulating.

If Galileo's crime had been insulting the Pope, why wasn't he prosecuted for laesa majestas ("injured majesty")?

You already proved that you are an ignorant twat.

Hey Toricelli why don't you publish?
Because I'm afraid of being forced to recant and live out my life in a palatial estate.

You mean imprisoned for the rest of my life.
Would you like to be imprisoned in a palace for the rest of your life?

Hey Toricelli why don't you publish?
Are you nuts? They BURN people like that at the stake.

The only people condemned to death were the heretics that did not recant.

This isn't a sophisticated era, cowing people was done in a simple and direct fashion. Killing Galileo, or at least locking him away or seizing property like most other Inquisition victims, would have been far more of an effective deterrant.

More effective than Galileo recanting?
By the way, check this out:

Penalties went from visits to churches, pilgrimages, and wearing the cross of infamy to imprisonment (usually for life but the sentences were often commuted) and (if the accused would not abjure) death. Death was by burning at the stake, and it was carried out by the secular authorities. In some serious cases when the accused had died before proceedings could be instituted, his or her remains could be exhumed and burned. Death or life imprisonment was always accompanied by the confiscation of all the accused's property.

A seventy years old man was imprisoned and was denied freedom even when he went blind.
The Inquisition had been very lenient[/sarcasm].

And as the Papal Condemnation explicitly says, new observation will be disregarded, since heliocentrism had been condemned once and for all as contrary to the Scriptures.

The Papal Condemnation can say whatever it damn well wants, the only escape clause proof documents coming out of Catholicism would be the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra or definition decrees of ecumenical councils. The Papal Condemnation is neither and CAN be overruled by newer decrees. It falls under the class of authentic Magesterium at the highest, far lower than either Universal Magisterium or Extraordinary Magesterium.
Not surprisingly after the course of time exactly this happened, a new decree removed Dialogue, as well as most all the other heliocentric works, from the Index.

You mean 200 (TWO HUNDRED) years later?
That does not change the fact that when Galileo was condemned, the Church had not intention to re-interpret the Holy Scriptures in favor of heliocentrism in light of new observations.
Instead they re-affirmed that heliocentrism is contrary to the Holy Scriptures.

See above about your delusions of a 100% efficient bureaucracy.

No I'm stating they were >50% efficiency obviously. Everyone from Galileo's publisher to both censors the Secretary of Vatican could be dragged before the Inquisition themselves for their role in spreading obvious heresy - challenging the authority of the Church was possibly the biggest crime one could make in Counter Reformation Catholicism. Not only does it boggle the mind that NO ONE who read, edited, published, or rewrote Dialogue noticed a glaring challenge to Chruch authority, why were NONE of these individuals hauled before the Inquisition for their role in the propagation of rank heresy?

Obviously it does not occur to you that the censors might not have considered the challenge that glaring.
The fact that the challenge became clear only once the book started circulating and being read, must be completely out of your grasp.

Unless, of course, you can provide actual evidence to support your claim.

Questioning the authority of the Chruch was something that started wars and lead to interdiction. Copernicanism was merely "erroneous". The Inquisitorial response to everyone else involved in publishing Galileo's work is much more in line with hatchet job on Galileo than a serious challenge to authority.

You clearly missed the part, where Copernicanism was considered erroneous because contrary to the Scriptures.
Galileo effectively rejected the authority of the Scriptures as source of true knowledge about the natural world, which is why he examined observations and experiments in his Dialogue.

In any event the Church does cite observation, at least obliquely in the Papal Condmenation:
"Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith. "

Why don't you quote it all?

Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgment in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.

{Signed}

(bolding mine)
Oh look: you cherry-picked the sources again!
Isn't it weird that when we look at the context of the quotes you provide, things don't look like you claim?
Is it because you are wrong?

But remember folks Church censors who held the very souls of the faithful in their hands, not to mention their own lives and well being, were merely inefficient and failed to noticed a major challenge to Church authority. This inefficiency also extended to the Secretary of the Vatican and Galileo's publisher. Of course the Inquisition saw this inefficiency and decided to do nothing to anyone except confining the author to house arrest

I see lots of rolled eyes, but nothing resembling the ghost of a shadow of a shred of evidence.
Obviously you are unable to back up your claims.