3rd Molars

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The following is from an article that points to it. The website is run by The Catholic Education Resource Center and was written by Catholic apologist PATRICK MADRID.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html
But what about torture? While it's true that [b]a decree issued by Pope Urban VIII instructed that Galileo "should be ...[text shortened]...

In an attempt to refute that Galileo was tortured, the above was acknowledged.[/b]

I am vaguely familiar with Patrick Madrid. He is not an historian. Catherolic apologist is not actually an academic title. Would you know the name of the decree or be able to source it for me?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
conrau, we are talking about the catholic church here. he was charged with heresy, the penalty for which was not anything pleasant. (burn at the stake in order to be purified). why do you need an official record to say "I, cardinal sparky, hereby formally threaten galileo with pointy sharp objects".

We can tell for sure he was threatened with torture. B ...[text shortened]... ation of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[52]

conrau, we are talking about the catholic church here. he was charged with heresy, the penalty for which was not anything pleasant. (burn at the stake in order to be purified). why do you need an official record to say "I, cardinal sparky, hereby formally threaten galileo with pointy sharp objects".

Look, all I am asking is for evidence. I have no particular concern either way whether Galileo was or was not threatened with torture. I have no apologetical interest in this matter. The Catholic Church has apologised for this incident and mostly Catholics would probably go along with the popular story that he was tortured. I am just asking for evidence for these claims.

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy",{aka- in danger of becoming firewood}

This is silly.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am vaguely familiar with Patrick Madrid. He is not an historian. Catherolic apologist is not actually an academic title. Would you know the name of the decree or be able to source it for me?

. Catherolic apologist is not actually an academic title.
lol. Never said nor remotely implied it is an "academic title". So what? Always less interested in the truth than trying to make "points" no matter how minor, irrelevant or even idiotic. Some things never change.

Would you know the name of the decree or be able to source it for me?

If you were truly interested in the truth, I'm sure you could source it yourself and have much better resources at your disposal than I. Given your posting history, no source would be good enough if you are emotionally invested enough in this issue. Hopefully someday you'll be able to overcome this affliction. Should come with maturity, but then again you seem to more deeply affected than most.

That said, hopefully the following gets close enough. If not, you'll be on your own in getting access to the actual decree itself, getting it authenticated, ensuring that said authenticators are credentialed to your satisfaction, etc. 🙂

http://elfinspell.com/LiesandErrorsGalileo.html

From Some Lies and Errors of History by the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D.; Notre Dame, Indiana: The Ave Maria; 7th edition; 1893; pp. 95-122.
95

It is true that torture was threatened, but the menace was not executed. In a decree issued by Urban VIII. on June 16, 1633, and first published by L’Epinois, it was ordered that Galileo “should be questioned as to his intention [In publishing the ‘Dialogue’], and that he should be menaced with torture. If he does not yield to the threat, he must be made to pronounce, in full session of the Holy Office, an abjuration for strong suspicion of heresy.”

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]. Catherolic apologist is not actually an academic title.
lol. Never said nor remotely implied it is an "academic title". So what? Always less interested in the truth than trying to make "points" no matter how minor, irrelevant or even idiotic. Some things never change.

Would you know the name of the decree or be able to source it for me?[ ...[text shortened]... ll session of the Holy Office, an abjuration for strong suspicion of heresy.”
[/quote][/b]

Well, I thought the request was quite justifiable. You can't just say 'Pope issued a decree saying that Galileo would be tortured...'. A date would at least help me to locate the original document. Thank you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I thought the request was quite justifiable. You can't just say 'Pope issued a decree saying that Galileo would be tortured...'. A date would at least help me to locate the original document. Thank you.

lol. Didn't think you'd understand the underlying points, but thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Like I said, "Some things never change." But maybe someday...

Miss the following?
"In a decree issued by Urban VIII. on June 16, 1633, and first published by L’Epinois"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Miss the following?
"In a decree issued by Urban VIII. on June 16, 1633, and first published by L’Epinois"

You misunderstand. I was thanking you for providing me that very information. I am not entirely sure why you criticised my request in the first place for that information. Anyway, I hope to locate that document as a matter of interest.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You misunderstand. I was thanking you for providing me that very information. I am not entirely sure why you criticised my request in the first place for that information. Anyway, I hope to locate that document as a matter of interest.

You misunderstand. I was thanking you for providing me that very information.

I suppose you could have been "thanking [me] for providing [you] that very information", though it's kinda hard to buy.

Let's see what you actually said:
"A date would at least help me to locate the original document."

Seems like a college educated kid should understand when to use the definite article "The" rather than the indefinite article "A". Since you evidently don't, you should find the following edifying:

'a' = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects)
'the' = definite article (a specific object that both the person speaking and the listener know

Also, your use of the word "would" indicates a second conditional with the condition "understood" which is inconsistent with your "explanation". You should also find the following site edifying:
http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/how-use-would

I suppose you could be a college kid with a poor command of English, but then, maybe you just missed it and are now attempting an implausible denial.

Either way, it isn't because "[I] misunderstand".

I am not entirely sure why you criticised my request in the first place for that information.

Like I said, "Didn't think you'd understand the underlying points...". Can't see taking another cut at it, so try reading my post again as a whole. There are underlying points that seem to have escaped you. Let's see if you can "understand" what they are.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You misunderstand. I was thanking you for providing me that very information.

I suppose you could have been "thanking [me] for providing [you] that very information", though it's kinda hard to buy.

Let's see what you actually said:
"A date would at least help me to locate the original document."

Seems like a college educated ve escaped you. Let's see if you can "understand" what they are.[/b]

The use of 'would' and the indefinite article were intended as a general, gnomic sentence as in -- if you cite a document, then you ought to provide a date. I can't see anything controversial about that. Why should I do your intellectual work sourcing evidence for your claims? When you finally did that, I was simply explaining that this is in fact a reasonable expectation. That is precisely why I then thanked you. I won't deign to respond to the character-attack.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]conrau, we are talking about the catholic church here. he was charged with heresy, the penalty for which was not anything pleasant. (burn at the stake in order to be purified). why do you need an official record to say "I, cardinal sparky, hereby formally threaten galileo with pointy sharp objects".

Look, all I am asking is for evidence. I have n ...[text shortened]... d "vehemently suspect of heresy",{aka- in danger of becoming firewood}[/b]

This is silly.[/b]

dude, there is evidence. i shown it to you. galileo spends his life supporting an idea. then he stands trial as a suspect of heresy. and then he rescinds his ideas, gets house arrested and his books are banned. what do you think happened? do you really think he would have done the rebuttal if there wasn't any danger? and since he did go back on his opinions and he was silenced, why would there be any record of "threat of torture"?

not to mention he was indeed sentenced to formal imprisonment at the "inquisition's pleasure". that would be enough of a threat.


sometimes you don't need a piece of paper to actually point out something. as you are well aware, we could know there is electricity in our appartment by turning on the TV, not necessarily sticking a voltmeter(or watcha call it) in the electrical outlet and measuring.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
dude, there is evidence. i shown it to you. galileo spends his life supporting an idea. then he stands trial as a suspect of heresy. and then he rescinds his ideas, gets house arrested and his books are banned. what do you think happened? do you really think he would have done the rebuttal if there wasn't any danger? and since he did go back on his opinions ...[text shortened]... cessarily sticking a voltmeter(or watcha call it) in the electrical outlet and measuring.

Well, it seems that the threat of torture was used. I would be curious to read the original document. I am not sure what strictly constituted torture.

There could have been a number of other reasons for Galileo to recant. I suspect that the threat of an indict would be enough (that is, denial of communion), if he were a devout Catholic.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, it seems that the threat of torture was used. I would be curious to read the original document. I am not sure what strictly constituted torture.

There could have been a number of other reasons for Galileo to recant. I suspect that the threat of an indict would be enough (that is, denial of communion), if he were a devout Catholic.

you seem intent on defending the catholic church
note that i didn't use the term "catholic faith" as i do not believe those murdering barbarians had anything to do with catholicism.

try and think for a moment you have no "allegiances". you are neither a catholic nor are you an australian, a liberal, that you don't adhere to any "ism". in other words, ignore any data you might have that isn't related to the problem.

now identify the question you need answering. see what data you do have available. a man supports an idea. an organization with a history of torture and painful executions accuses him of something. this organization is not very well known for holding fair trials and to be honest, how can a "you are a witch" accusation be proven anyway? this organization suggests that should a guilty verdict be given after a trial, the man in question might given to an organization even more gruesome than the first.

now think. would it be more probable that the man in question feared the loss of communion more (which is a threat itself) or the threat of torture at the hands of the most feared organisation of that time (terrorist organisation even). think if it would matter. the point is, this organisation threatened a man into giving up his beliefs. and succeeded.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you seem intent on defending the catholic church
note that i didn't use the term "catholic faith" as i do not believe those murdering barbarians had anything to do with catholicism.

try and think for a moment you have no "allegiances". you are neither a catholic nor are you an australian, a liberal, that you don't adhere to any "ism". in other words, i int is, this organisation threatened a man into giving up his beliefs. and succeeded.

you seem intent on defending the catholic church

I'm not. The story of Galileo is obviously an embarrassment to Catholics and following the lead of Bl Pope John Paul, they will likely apologise and try to move on. I am just asking as a matter of interest what evidence is there that Galileo was tortured or threatened with torture. It seems entirely reasonable. And I am not Catholic; my boyfriend might be a little disturbed if I were.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The use of 'would' and the indefinite article were intended as a general, gnomic sentence as in -- if you cite a document, then you ought to provide a date. I can't see anything controversial about that. Why should I do your intellectual work sourcing evidence for your claims? When you finally did that, I was simply explaining that this is in fact a reasona ...[text shortened]... That is precisely why I then thanked you. I won't deign to respond to the character-attack.

As usual, it becomes pointless to try to engage in a rational discussion with you regarding anything connected to the RCC. You become so wrapped up in defending them that you can't see what's laid out in front of you. Your protestations that you're not "intent on defending the catholic church" is contradicted by your posting history. Quite often, you're so intent that it just becomes idiotic (like here and on other threads).

The cognitive dissonance created by your compulsion to defend an organization whose ostensible primary reason for existence is a sham in your own eyes (assuming you are an atheist this week) must really do a number on your head. Not to mention your repeated vacillation between being an atheist and a Catholic.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As usual, it becomes pointless to try to engage in a rational discussion with you regarding anything connected to the RCC. You become so wrapped up in defending them that you can't see what's laid out in front of you. Your protestations that you're not "intent on defending the catholic church" is contradicted by your posting history. Quite often, you're s ...[text shortened]... ur head. Not to mention your repeated vacillation between being an atheist and a Catholic.

As usual, it becomes pointless to try to engage in a rational discussion with you regarding anything connected to the RCC.

It is certainly true that I often post defending the RCC. This is not because, as you claim, I retain some tribal allegiance to the RCC. One nuance often lost on posters on this forum is that I equally defend the Orthodox Church and I most often comment on early church history. You will find that most often whenever I post, I usually mention the RCC and the Orthodox churches together. These are matters of which I have knowledge. That's the only reason I comment on them.

I really have no idea why you bring this up. I am not defending the Catholic Church here. First, I acknowledge that Galileo was threatened with torture. I won't contest that point. Second, this is not a point the Catholic Church wants defending -- Bl Pope John Paul has already apologised on behalf of the Catholic Church. No apologist is wanted any more. I was just reasonably asking for more information on this topic. If people are going to put the claim forward, I don't see why they can't give the supporting evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]you seem intent on defending the catholic church

I'm not. The story of Galileo is obviously an embarrassment to Catholics and following the lead of Bl Pope John Paul, they will likely apologise and try to move on. I am just asking as a matter of interest what evidence is there that Galileo was tortured or threatened with torture. It seems entirely reasonable. And I am not Catholic; my boyfriend might be a little disturbed if I were.[/b]

odd, i always thought you were catholic. i waz confused i guess.


there is indirect evidence. galileo recanted because he was in danger of being imprisoned at the inquisition's pleasure. that would be enough of a threat of torture because the inquisition WAS basically a torture institution.