Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

**EDWARD D. ANDREWS** (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 200+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an Italian astronomer, physicist, engineer, and philosopher who played a significant role in the scientific revolution. His support for the heliocentric model, which posited that the Earth revolved around the sun rather than vice versa, sparked a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. While the Church did, in fact, oppose Galileo’s views, it is important to understand the historical context and nuances of this opposition. This essay will delve into the reasons behind the Church’s actions and explore the complex relationship between science and religion in the 17th century.

Background

In the early 17th century, the geocentric model, also known as the Ptolemaic system, was the dominant view of the universe. This model placed the Earth at the center of the cosmos, with the sun and other celestial bodies orbiting around it. The geocentric model was supported by the Catholic Church, as it aligned with certain biblical passages that implied Earth’s centrality.

In 1543, Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), which proposed the heliocentric model. However, it wasn’t until Galileo’s work that the heliocentric model began to gain significant traction. Galileo’s telescopic observations, which included the discovery of Jupiter’s moons and the observation of the phases of Venus, provided empirical evidence in favor of the heliocentric model. This challenged the Church’s authority and their interpretation of the Bible.

The Church’s Response

Galileo’s work led to a series of confrontations with the Church. In 1616, the Catholic Church declared the heliocentric model as “false and contrary to Scripture.” Galileo was admonished by the Church and instructed not to promote the heliocentric model.

However, in 1623, a new Pope, Urban VIII, who was a former friend and admirer of Galileo, was elected. Galileo believed that Urban VIII would be more receptive to his ideas, so he continued his work on the heliocentric model. In 1632, he published “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” a work that argued in favor of the Copernican system. This publication led to a second confrontation with the Church.

The Inquisition and Galileo’s Trial

The publication of the “Dialogue” caused a backlash, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to face the Inquisition in 1633. The Inquisition was a powerful institution within the Catholic Church tasked with maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy and rooting out heresy.

During his trial, Galileo was found guilty of heresy for advocating the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his views publicly, and the “Dialogue” was placed on the Church’s list of prohibited books. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.

The Church’s Position and the Complexities of the Time

The Church’s opposition to Galileo should be understood in the broader context of the time. The 17th century was a period of religious turmoil in Europe, marked by the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism. The Catholic Church was under significant pressure to maintain its authority, and Galileo’s work challenged the Church’s traditional interpretation of Scripture.

Moreover, Galileo’s approach to his work was confrontational and provocative. He was known for his stubbornness and sometimes abrasive personality, which may have exacerbated the conflict with the Church. Additionally, some historians argue that Galileo’s work might have been more acceptable to the Church had he presented the heliocentric model as a hypothesis rather than as a fact. By asserting the heliocentric model as an undeniable truth, Galileo directly challenged the Church’s authority and interpretation of Scripture, which contributed to the severity of their response.

It is also important to note that the Church’s opposition to Galileo was not universally shared among its members. Many church officials, scholars, and theologians were intrigued by Galileo’s findings and engaged in debates about the implications of the heliocentric model for the Church’s teachings. However, the political and religious tensions of the time likely influenced the Church’s ultimate decision to suppress Galileo’s work.

Reconciliation and Legacy

The relationship between the Catholic Church and Galileo’s work has evolved over time. In 1758, the Church lifted the ban on works advocating the heliocentric model, and by the early 19th century, the heliocentric model was widely accepted within the Catholic Church.

In 1981, Pope John Paul II established a commission to reevaluate the Galileo case. After an extensive study, in 1992, the Pope publicly acknowledged the Church’s errors in its handling of Galileo’s case and stated that Galileo’s work did not contradict the Bible but rather offered a new understanding of the cosmos. This marked a significant moment of reconciliation between the Church and the scientific community.

Conclusion

While the Catholic Church did oppose Galileo and his advocacy of the heliocentric model, it is crucial to recognize the historical context and complexities of this opposition. The 17th-century religious and political landscape played a significant role in shaping the Church’s response, as did Galileo’s confrontational approach. The Church’s subsequent acknowledgement of its errors and reconciliation with Galileo’s work demonstrate the potential for science and religion to coexist and complement one another.

Ultimately, Galileo’s story serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning established norms and seeking the truth, even in the face of opposition. His legacy continues to inspire scientists and critical thinkers to push the boundaries of knowledge and understanding.

On This Mark A. Kalthoff Writes

Simple questions do not always have simple answers. “Didn’t the church oppose Galileo?” is certainly one such question. Everyone “knows” the church opposed Galileo, but what does this mean?

Despite the complexity of Galileo’s engagement with the church, there are several relevant facts that can be simply stated.

For one thing, every significant player in the Galileo affair was a committed Christian. This was no tale of a secular scientific community pitted against a backward, antiscientific church. The Roman Catholic Church provided greater patronage to astronomical study than did all other contemporary institutions combined.

That being said, straightforward readings of certain biblical passages (Gn 1; Jos 10:12; Pss 19:4–6; 93:1; 104:5, 19; Ec 1:4–5) suggest an earth-centered cosmology with the sun revolving about a stationary earth. By the early seventeenth century, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, such a plain interpretation of these passages was normative throughout Christendom. Moreover, both common sense and the weight of contemporary scientific opinion opposed the idea of the earth’s motion.

Hence, any public defender of the Copernican (sun-centered) cosmology would have to overcome two difficult challenges. He would have to supply conclusive scientific evidence for the earth’s motion and the sun’s fixity—something that was not then available, even to Galileo. In addition, he would have to provide expert theological guidance to explain how properly to interpret those biblical texts that seemingly contradicted the Copernican hypothesis. Galileo was not a theologian. He was a mathematician and natural philosopher.

Although Galileo believed that he possessed proof of the Copernican hypothesis (in his theory of the tides), he was mistaken. His theory was seriously flawed. Overconfidence in the strength of his case led Galileo to tread out of his area of expertise and into the theological territory of biblical interpretation. As a layman, he overstepped his bounds by presuming to give guidance on reading the Bible.

What did the Roman Catholic Church do? It acted prudently and conservatively by upholding the received biblical and scientific opinion of the day. In 1616 the Theological Consultors of the Holy Office (advisers to the Pope) declared the Copernican theory heretical and foolish. Protestant leaders, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, had expressed similar disapproval of Copernicanism.

In 1633, Galileo was judged to be “vehemently suspected of heresy” and sentenced to house arrest for defending the Copernican hypothesis. Of greater significance is the fact that the church never formally condemned the Copernican theory ex cathedra. That is, it never formally made opposition to Copernicanism an article of faith. Neither has any Protestant denomination done so. The Pope, his advisers, and other Christian leaders may have erred in their personal opinions on the matter, but all stopped short of asserting anti-Copernicanism an official doctrine of Christianity. Galileo was punished as a Christian layman for overstepping his bounds in a theological matter (biblical interpretation) that touched on a scientific question. In the end this was a religious dispute about biblical interpretation between Christians within the Roman Catholic Church.

Did the church oppose Galileo? Yes, it did. But that opposition was grounded in a careful attempt to preserve both Christian orthodoxy and scientific integrity in a time of tumultuous change. The remarkable fact is that, despite the inclinations of its leaders, both Protestant and Catholic, the Christian churches never made opposition to Copernicanism an official article of faith.^[1]

^[1] Mark A. Kalthoff, “Didn’t the Church Oppose Galileo?,” in The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith, ed. Ted Cabal et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 746–747.