Roger Pearse

I think the Champollion allegations have conflated several different events in his life.

James Hannam

Actually, thousands of new titles had been published by 1543. Printing had been around for a hundred years already. Erasmus, a generation before, had complained "of books and their reading, there is no end".

Nicholas Schönberg, Cardinal of Capua encouraged Copernicus to publish his ideas so clearly didn't think they were heretical. Copernicus was worried that his radical idea for which he had no evidence would be ridiculed, but not that it would be treated as heresy. You also seem to have this idea that the Church had the staff and inclination to act as an all-pervasive thought police. In fact, it got involved only when it perceived a real threat to the faith. Advanced mathematics that no one really noticed did not cut the mustard.

Best wishes

James (pka Bede)

Read Chapter One of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

Jehanne

Copernicus, like Luther before him and Galileo after, could have received theological censures, excommunications, etc., from a whole host of characters, from his bishop right up to the Pope himself. So, you've made my point -- Pope Paul III did not perceive any real "threat" to the Catholic faith, so nothing happened. If Galileo had kept his discourses to himself or to the Latin elite, nothing probably would have happened in his case, either! This is not to say that Paul III agreed with Copernicus any more than Urban VIII agreed with Galileo. On the part of Paul III, all that we have is silence, which speaks volumes. All this suggests is that Paul III (or his bishops or the theologians at Rome who read the book) regarded the matter as being theological opinion. Under Pope Urban VIII, all of this would, of course, change, and a de fide pronouncement would be made, against the Copernican system. The Church would, of course, "undo" all of that at The First Vatican Council, when Pope Pius IX fabricated the "dogma" of papal infallibility.

James Hannam

But he didn't and didn't expect to. The matter was not heretical because the church had no opinion on the matter. It had no opinion because it didn't care.

Can we stop this now?

J

Amaleq13

I was starting to wonder if he was you in a new incarnation.

More Doctor Who than Prince, I would think.

It is my understanding the Pope had expressed a personal interest in learning more about it. Is that a myth as well? And what about the fact that the Pope would be the best individual to silence any potential "babblers" with regard to a conflict with Scripture?

Jehanne

But, if you read my Aquinas quote from above (Summa Theologiae, II, II, Q.1, A. 10), just because Pope Paul III did not declare the Copernican doctrine heretical did not bind his successors from declaring the idea to be heretical and contrary to Sacred Scripture. Pope Urban VIII did just that. And then the First Vatican Council "undid" Urban VIII's declaration. So, yes, we can stop now.

Amaleq13

Spare me the persecution complex. When I'm posting as a moderator, I make it very clear. You waste space with one-line posts that don't explain the relevance of your comment to the discussion. Including what you have in this post in your previous would have prevented that.

IOW, this isn't a text message exchange.

Jehanne

I asked a question, one which I felt was fundamental to the issues that I was bringing to the discussion, hence, it was a "one-liner." I have my options configured to accept PMs, so you can always contact me via that route, whether you are "moderating" or not. I have said all that I going to on this thread, so I am done.

Stephen T-B

"I find it very odd that someone who claims to be an opponent of superstition and believes in the progress of science would be so blase as to quote an example on the basis on a drama they once saw on TV." (James Hannam)
I did ask for that, but I don’t quite see how being superstitious relates to watchng a dramatised history series on the Beeb and assuming it isn’t entirely made up,
For the very reason they claim to be "history", I suggest it would be a rash producer (even in these days of slumping standards) who didn't expect real historians to make a meal of factual errors, and would therefore make an effort to get things right.

The RC, as I insist, does not have a good record for its promotion of science. Hence, from the First Vatican Council (1869/70): “... all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."

andrewcriddle

Certainly the Inquisition burnt witches.

It just didn't burn many of them. The vast majority of executions for witchcraft did not involve the Inquisition in the strict sense.

(On the other hand some Roman Catholic prince-bishops in post-reformation Germany were fanatical about killing supposed witches, but although these atrocities occurred at the instigation of a bishop they mostly did not involve the Inquisition but the secular courts under the prince-bishops' authority.)

Andrew Criddle