Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Copernicus: reply re: Protestant position
Line 66: Line 66:  
==Copernicus==
 
==Copernicus==
 
It was my understanding that Protestants recevied Copernicus' work well, but the Catholic Church condemned it because it conflicted with their interpretation of the Bible. This, of course, is the opposite of what you state and I would like some more information concerning it. I would also like to know where you learned that "Wars were being fought and soldiers were dying . . ."? Which wars specifically led to the Catholic Church's banning of Copernicus's theory as fact? I had no idea that the Church had prohibited it because they wanted to avoid further controversy with Protestants. I thought there ''was'' a Catholic objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Information, please. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 08:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
 
It was my understanding that Protestants recevied Copernicus' work well, but the Catholic Church condemned it because it conflicted with their interpretation of the Bible. This, of course, is the opposite of what you state and I would like some more information concerning it. I would also like to know where you learned that "Wars were being fought and soldiers were dying . . ."? Which wars specifically led to the Catholic Church's banning of Copernicus's theory as fact? I had no idea that the Church had prohibited it because they wanted to avoid further controversy with Protestants. I thought there ''was'' a Catholic objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Information, please. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 08:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Good question, Steve.  The objection to Copernicus's theory was based on a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible, and generally Protestants at the time took the Bible more literally than Catholics.
 +
 +
: Here is one source, which was the first link that came up on my first search, from a Rutgers' source:
 +
 +
::Copernicus' densely mathematical  Latin book,  On  the  Revolutions  of  the  Celestial Spheres, had  never really  attracted much  interest from  Roman Catholics; earlier  Medieval  philosophers  like  Nicholas  Oresme  (c.1325-1382)  and Nicholas of  Cusa (1401-1464)  had already  suggested a  moving Earth,  and Catholics were  used to interpreting Scripture allegorically.  So what else is new?  It  was the  Protestants, particularly  Lutherans, who  saw  that Copernicus'  moving  Earth  was  fatal  to  their  cherished  literal interpretation of  the Bible: "This fool [Copernicus]," wrote Luther in his Table Talk,  "will  turn  the  whole  science  of  astronomy  upside-down!"  Meanwhile, Lutheran  Andreas Osiander  (1498-1552) had written a preface to Copernicus' book,  reassuring readers  it  was  all  just  a  "mathematical exercise", and  did not  need to be taken literally.[http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/galileo]
 +
 +
:--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits

Navigation menu