Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
Ebook415 pages4 hours

Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Considered the paradigm case of the troubled interaction between science and religion, the conflict between Galileo and the Church continues to generate new research and lively debate. Richard J. Blackwell offers a fresh approach to the Galileo case, using as his primary focus the biblical and ecclesiastical issues that were the battleground for the celebrated confrontation. Blackwell's research in the Vatican manuscript collection and the Jesuit archives in Rome enables him to re-create a vivid picture of the trends and counter-trends that influenced leading Catholic thinkers of the period: the conservative reaction to the Reformation, the role of authority in biblical exegesis and in guarding orthodoxy from the inroads of "unbridled spirits," and the position taken by Cardinal Bellarmine and the Jesuits in attempting to weigh the discoveries of the new science in the context of traditional philosophy and theology. A centerpiece of Blackwell's investigation is his careful reading of the brief treatise Letter on the Motion of the Earth by Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite scholar, arguing for the compatibility of the Copernican system with the Bible. Blackwell appends the first modern translation into English of this important and neglected document, which was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1616. Though there were differing and competing theories of biblical interpretation advocated in Galileo's time—the legacy of the Council of Trent, the views of Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential churchman of his time, and, finally, the claims of authority and obedience that weakened the abillity of Jesuit scientists to support the new science—all contributed to the eventual condemnation of Galileo in 1633. Blackwell argues convincingly that the maintenance of ecclesiastical authority, not the scientific issues themselves, led to that tragic trial.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 31, 1991
ISBN9780268158934
Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
Author

Richard J. Blackwell

Richard J. Blackwell is professor emeritus of philosophy, Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous books, including Behind the Scenes at Galileo's Trial (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), and is translator of A Defense of Galileo, the Mathematician from Florence (University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).

Related to Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible - Richard J. Blackwell

    GALILEO, BELLARMINE, AND THE BIBLE

    Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible

    Including a Translation of Foscarini’s Letter on the Motion of the Earth

    RiCHARD J. BLACKWELL

    UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS

    University of Notre Dame Press

    Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

    www.undpress.nd.edu

    All Rights Reserved

    Published in the United States of America

    Copyright © 1991 by University of Notre Dame

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    Blackwell, Richard J., 1929–

    Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible : including a translation of Foscarini’s Letter on the motion of the earth / Richard J. Blackwell.

    p. cm.

    Includes bibliographical references and index.

    ISBN 0-268-01024-2

    1. Galilei, Galileo, 1564–1642. 2. Bellarmino, Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542–1621. 3. Foscarini, Paolo Antonio, ca. 1565–1616. 4. Astronomy, Renaissance. 5. Religion and science—History—17th century. 6. Catholic church—Doctrines—History—17th century. 7. Inquisition—Italy. I. Foscarini, Paolo Antonio, ca. 1565–1616. Epistola … circa Pythagoricorum & Copernici opinionem de mobilitate terræ et stabilitate solis. English II. Title.

    QB36.G2B574 1991

    520’.94’09032—dc20

    90-70858

    CIP

    ISBN 9780268158934

    This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at ebooks@nd.edu.

    It is impossible for two truths to conflict. As a result we should not fear the assaults which come against us, whatever they be, as long as we still have room to speak and to be heard by people who are experts and who are not excessively affected by their own interests and feelings.

    Galileo, Letter to Castelli

    We say in general that the judge of the true meaning of Scripture and of all controversies is the Church, that is, the pontiff with a council, on which all Catholics agree and which was expressly stated by the Council of Trent, Session IV.

    Bellarmine, Controversies I, I, 3, 3

    No one ought to be so addicted to a philosophical sect, or to defend some philosophical opinion with such tenacity, that he thinks that the whole of Sacred Scripture should henceforth be understood accordingly.

    Foscarini, Defense

    FOR ROSEMARY

    As a lily among the thistles …

    The Song of Songs 2:2

    Contents

    Preface

    Introduction

    Chapter 1: Trent and Beyond

    The Fourth Session of the Council of Trent

    The Theological Repercussions of the Fourth Session

    Copernicanism and Sixteenth-Century Astronomy

    Chapter 2: Bellarmine’s Views Before the Galileo Affair

    The Truth and Meaning of the Scriptures

    Bellarmine’s Biblical Cosmology

    Bellarmine’s Role in the Bruno Trial

    The Resolution of the Controversy over Grace and Free Will

    Chapter 3: Galileo’s Detour into Biblical Exegesis

    Blocking the Path of Inquiry

    Galileo’s Initial Response

    The Shadow of Heresy

    Galileo’s Final Response

    Chapter 4: Foscarini’s Bombshell

    Science and Scripture in the Lettera

    Mate, Checkmate, and Tobias’s Dog

    Chapter 5: The Bible at Galileo’s Trial

    The Origin of the Charges against Copernicanism

    The Verdict and the Decree

    The Order to Obey

    The Bible in the Courtoom

    Chapter 6: The Jesuit Dilemma: Truth or Obedience

    Solid and Uniform Doctrine

    The Jesuit Tradition on Obedience

    Biancani’s Battle with the Jesuit Censors

    The Onset of Intellectual Rigor Mortis

    Chapter 7: Reflections on Truth in Science and in Religion

    Science and the Bible

    Religious Faith and the Logic of Authority

    Appendix I: Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546)

    Appendix II: Diego de Zuñiga, Commentary on Job 9:6 (1584)

    Appendix III: Bellarmine, De controversiis de verbo Dei I, I, 3, 3 (1586)

    Appendix IV: Galileo’s Letter to Castelli (21 December 1613)

    Appendix V: The Galileo-Dini Correspondence

    A.  Galileo to Dini (16 February 1615)

    B.  Dini to Galileo (7 March 1615)

    C.  Galileo to Dini (23 March 1615)

    Appendix VI: Foscarini’s Letter (6 January 1615)

    Appendix VII: The Censor’s Report and Foscarini’s Reply

    A.  An Unidentified Theologian’s Censure of Foscarini’s Letter (1615)

    B.  Foscarini’s Defense of the Letter (1615)

    Appendix VIII: Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini (12 April 1615)

    Appendix IX: Galileo’s Unpublished Notes (1615)

    A.  On Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini

    B.  On the Relations of Science and Scripture

    Bibliography

    Index

    Preface

    This book has gradually grown out of the author’s curiosity over the following question: At the time of the Galileo affair, what was the intellectual ground occupied by serious Catholic thinkers who stood, as it were, on the other side of the fence from Galileo? The obvious starting point was, of course, to undertake a study of Cardinal Bellarmine, which in turn led to the views of his numerous Jesuit colleagues who happened to be among the best-informed mathematicians and astronomers of the day. Many of our findings belied our preconceptions. Large quantities of unpublished papers and letters by Bellarmine and by the other Jesuit principals in the story remain to be given the study they deserve, and perhaps they hold further unexpected insights into the Galileo affair.

    Equally unstudied have been the writings of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, O. Carm. This is particularly surprising since his Lettera was condemned by explicit title and in toto in the famous 5 March 1616 Decree of the Congregation of the Index which announced the condemnation of Copernicanism. Yet there are to date no studies of this Lettera in English and only a very few in Italian. For the benefit of scholars we have included in Appendix VI the first modern English translation of this lengthy booklet since Thomas Salusbury’s seventeenth-century English rendition which is now almost both unobtainable and unreadable because of it arcane style.

    Our major debt for making this book possible is owed to the professional staff members of the various research libraries and archives who made both their research materials and advice so generously available to us. This applies first and foremost to the librarians at the Pius XII Memorial Library of Saint Louis University, and especially to Dr. Charles Ermatinger, the Director of its Vatican Microfilm Library. Also a special word of thanks must be extended to Rev. Francis Edwards, S.J., Archivist, and Rev. Joseph Costelloe, S.J., Librarian, at the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI) in Rome; to Rev. Emanuele Boaga, O. Carm., Archivist at the Centro Internazionale S. Alberto — Carmelitani, in Rome; to Dr. William B. Ashworth, Jr., and Dr. Bruce Bradley, Librarian for the History of Science, of the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City; and to Mrs. Helen S. Butz, Rare Book Librarian, University Library, University of Michigan.

    We also wish to express our special appreciation to Rev. John W. Padberg, S.J., Director, Institute of Jesuit Sources (St. Louis), for his close critique and helpful suggestions to improve an earlier version of chapter 6. The remaining deficiencies here and elsewhere are due, of course, to us.

    All translations used in this book were made by the author, unless indicated otherwise in the footnotes. The Jerusalem Bible was used for the English text in some of the biblical quotations. Words placed within square brackets in direct quotations have been added by the translator for purposes of clarification. In preparing the translations we have attempted to achieve both accuracy and readability, but without ever sacrificing the former to the latter.

    The documents in the Appendices are the primary sources upon which this study is based. They are not collected together in any one other place. Many of them appear here in English for the first time.

    The completion of the writing of this book was made possible by a sabbatical leave generously granted to us by Saint Louis University for the fall semester of 1989.

    This edition differs from the original cloth bound edition in only two respects. First we have corrected some minor wording and typographical errors. Second and more importantly our translation of Foscarini’s Defense in Appendix VIIB has been revised and expanded to take account of the newly discovered Latin text of that treatise published by E. Boaga while the original edition of this book was in press.

    Introduction

    The Piazza della Minerva in Rome is located immediately behind the left side of Hadrian’s monumental Pantheon. It derives its name from a temple built on this site in Roman times and dedicated to Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, of war, and of the practical arts. The goddess must have had difficulty managing such disparate and clashing forces, and this seems to be reflected in the subsequent history of this Piazza.

    The thirteenth-century Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, which now dominates the Piazza, and which contains a statue of Christ by Michelangelo and the burial places of Fra Angelico and St. Catherine of Siena, has long been the main center in Rome for the Dominican Order, which by tradition provided much of the staff for the Inquisition. The Dominican convent building immediately to the left of, and at right angles to, the facade of Santa Maria sopra Minerva was the headquarters of the Roman Inquisition and the site of the Galileo trial in 1633. This building faces the derriere of Bernini’s whimsical statue of an elephant carrying an obelisk, erected in the middle of the Piazza in 1667 in a position perhaps designed as a symbolic judgment on the trial. In 1988 the elephant’s head was still turned to the side, seemingly to avoid gazing upon the spectacle of an old building on the opposite side of the Piazza being converted into a Holiday Inn! Also in that same year one could read on the closed side door of the Dominican Church the following grafitti in English, It’s violence, but we like it. One wonders whether these thoughtless words of wisdom, worthy of Madame Defarge, were addressed to Minerva or to the Grand Inquisitor, and whether their author would change his message if he could experience the genuine violence so destructive of the human spirit which the Inquisition had exerted only a few feet away across the Piazza.

    Pagan gods, Christian saintliness, great art, the shadow of the Inquisition, ancient wisdom, modern science, contemporary grafitti, the Holiday Inn: somehow the juxtaposition in time of so many varied and potentially conflicting cultural forces in the Piazza della Minerva is a fitting symbol for the story we wish to tell about how science and religion encountered each other as each emerged from the sixteenth century in its recognizably modern garb.

    Galileo’s confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church over the biblical assessment of heliocentricism — or more simply the Galileo affair — has long had a special fascination. First and foremost, of course, this is because it is the paradigm case of the troubled interaction between science and religion. Another reason is the sheer dramatic power of the events involved, which continue to be attractive topics for the playwright and the novelist. Images easily multiply of the flawed tragic hero; of the struggle for intellectual freedom; of the individual pitted against the powerful institution committed to self-preservation; of plots, subplots, and counterplots worthy of a mystery writer. On another level the episode almost irresistably invites generalizations about the unstable interactions between science and religion for other ages as well. What happened was clearly a significant part of a large-scale turning-point in Western culture as the hegemony of the mediaeval religious world, shocked into facing its abuses by the Reformation, gave way gradually to the modern scientific mind-set, only dimly perceived at the time by even its most advanced proponents. Such cultural earthquakes reveal much about who we are as human beings. At still another level the Galileo affair has provided many with the occasion for ideological posturing for and against both the scientific and the religious worldviews.

    The latter type of response reached its zenith towards the end of the last century with the publication of John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). The notion in these books that this warfare was inevitable and that religion, especially Roman Catholicism, was a monolithic force against truth and human betterment, had considerable influence well into the twentieth century. Fortunately more serious and careful scholarship of the past generation or two has now debunked the views of Draper and White in favor of seeing the multileveled and multivalued interactions between science and religion. Galileo scholars have been prominent in this development.

    One of the results is that we now know more about what happened in the Galileo affair, and how it happened, than at any time in the past. Nevertheless an uneasiness persists; something about the episode still remains murky. The question of why it happened is still bothersome. In a recently published small booklet, Olaf Pedersen has suggested that one of the main reasons for this is that the students of the Galileo affair have for the most part been historians of science with little or no background in the history of theology and religion. His remedy is that it may well be that the key to a more satisfactory understanding of the ultimate causes of the condemnation will be found if we so extend the perspective that the whole affair is seen not only as an episode in the history of science, but also as an important event in the history of theology.¹

    The purpose of this book is to study the Galileo affair from this perspective. But even that is too general. More specifically we will concentrate on only one of the theological issues; namely, the role played by the Bible in the Galileo affair. Thus we will place our emphasis on the views at that time of the meaning, truth status, and authority of the Scriptures in the hope of combining this with the more thoroughly studied scientific issues in a way that will help to understand why people on both sides acted the way they did. This means that we will need to raise questions like: What were the key concerns of the administrators of the Catholic Church at the beginning of the seventeenth century? What were the major theological topics and disputes of the day? What effects did the Church’s major countermeasures at the time of the Reformation have on its mind-set at the start of the next century? What were the accepted views about the truth, meaning, and interpretation of the Scriptures at the time, and what were the central documents stating these views? What roles were played by the Jesuits, who were the Church’s scientific intellectuals and best-informed advisers? How did the Church’s concerns for its power and authority and for the loyalty and obedience of its members shape the course of events?

    When we come to the conclusion of this study, we will argue that of the many factors which entered into the Galileo affair, one had an especially prominent role; namely, differing views on the status of truth, i.e., truth by appeal to evidence in science vs. truth by appeal to authority in religion. At the time the newly born scientific culture and the newly reformed religious tradition had each generated a distinctive and different notion about the nature of its own truth and how it should be established. Given this, the participants within both communities acted reasonably for the most part; each set of views had its own internal logic and rationality; and the actions of their proponents are understandable accordingly. The fact that their standards of truth differed did not in itself mean that they must eventually come into conflict; but they could, and unfortunately did. And the climax of the Galileo affair in the trial of 1633 did not lessen, but magnified, the problem of relating religious and scientific claims to truth. But before we can profitably discuss these issues, we must first see what happened and why.

    ¹ Olaf Pedersen, Galileo and the Council of Trent, Vatican Observatory Publications: Studi Galileiani, vol. I, no. 1. (Città del Vaticano: Specola Vaticana, 1983), 1–2.

    CHAPTER

    1

    Trent and Beyond

    Nicholas Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was first published in May 1543. Tradition has it that the first copy arrived in Copernicus’s hands on 24 May, the day he died. Two and a half years later, in December 1545, the First Session of the Council of Trent was convened under Pope Paul III to deal with much needed reforms in the Roman Catholic Church. At that time these two events were utterly unrelated to each other. But the two lines of forces which they set in motion were destined to intersect. The collision occurred on 5 March 1616 when the Congregation of the Index, an administrative office established in the Roman Curia as a result of the Council of Trent, issued a condemnation of Copernicus’s book until corrected. How and why did these two initially independent lines of action come ultimately into conflict? To what extent was this conflict fortuitous and to what extent was it predestined? To answer these questions we need first to look closely at the Council of Trent and how it affected the views of theologians before Galileo entered the drama.

    THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

    The initial occasion for convening the Council of Trent was Martin Luther’s break with Rome in 1519. In many previous instances of crisis in the long history of the Church, the response had been to convene a council to settle the issues in dispute. In this spirit the Imperial Diet held at Nuremberg in 1523 called for a free Christian Council on German soil to deal with the questions which had split the Church. The request was repeated in 1524. The primary goal was to restore the unity of Christendom. However, an extraordinarily complex series of religious, political, diplomatic, and military disputes among various European states, with each other and with the popes of the time, postponed the opening of a council for a quarter of a century.¹ As these years passed, the potential for reunification became less and less viable. As a result when the Council of Trent finally did take place (1545–63), the focus had shifted to the goals of clarifying Catholic dogma and reforming the discipline, training, and life-style of the clergy. The eighteen years of the council were interrupted by two lengthy adjournments, first of four years (1547–51), and then of ten years (1552–62). These delays not only further decreased the likelihood of reunification but saw increasing distrust and open hostility between the Catholic and Protestant camps.

    For the present purposes it is important to emphasize that matters of natural philosophy, or of what we would now call the natural sciences, in no way were of concern in the debates at the council. At best they were mentioned only casually, if at all. The primary thrust of the council can be seen in a brief list of the central topics of decision: the books of Scripture and the role of tradition in the Church, original sin, justification and divine grace, each of the seven sacraments, indulgences, the mass, the education, morals, and preaching duties of the clergy, the jurisdiction and obligation of residence for bishops. These matters clearly centered on doctrinal and disciplinary issues in the life of the Church. However, the decisions arrived at on Scripture and tradition, originally made in response to the challenges of Luther and the other reformers, would later become related to the new ideas introduced by Copernicus. It is this aspect of the Council of Trent which calls for our attention.

    Before we turn to the specific conclusions of the council, a few remarks about its procedures may be helpful. The pope (first Paul III, then Julius III, and later Pius IV) convened the council and approved its decrees and canons afterwards (without any alterations in this case), but did not himself participate in the discussions and voting. The pope was represented by one or more legates who served, in effect, as presiding officers of the proceedings. The voting members were the cardinals, bishops, and the heads of the various religious orders in attendance, each having one vote. Numerous theologians and canon lawyers served as advisers to the voting members. A date was set in advance for a formal meeting, called a session, at which the official decisions would be made on an announced set of topics. Each session was preceded by weeks, sometimes months, of preparatory work which centered around plenary meetings of all voting members, called General Congregations, in which debate ranged widely and from which the formal documents stating the decrees and canons gradually emerged.² These latter documents, after the formal vote at the appropriate session, constitute the specific decisions of the council. The first three sessions at the Council of Trent dealt solely with matters of organization, procedure, and agenda. The main organizational dispute was whether to treat dogma or Church reform and discipline first. This was resolved by an agreement to deal with one set of topics from each area at each session. The Fourth Session was the first to deal with substantive matters, and the chosen topic was the status of Scripture, revelation, and tradition. This topic was undoubtedly chosen to be the first order of business because it focused on a central challenge posed by the reformers.

    The Fourth Session, held on 8 April 1546, approved two decrees, the first dealing with the notion of tradition and with determining the authentic books contained in the Scriptures, and the second with the edition and interpretation of the Bible.³ These two documents are of major importance both in the history of the Church and in the Galileo affair. One of the effects of the first decree was to determine for the Catholic Church which of the books of the ancient religious cultures are to be taken as canonical, i.e., as writings inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus as expressing God’s revelation. This, of course, was not the first attempt at listing the canonical books in the history of the Church — such attempts date back to 180 A.D. — and had previously been dealt with in a decree of the Council of Florence (4 February 1441). But the matter had become urgent because Luther had raised the issue of the content of the canon, and the Council Fathers clearly felt obliged to respond. The decision made at Trent, which in effect reaffirmed the decree of the Council of Florence, has defined the Catholic edition of the Bible ever since.

    Closely related to this is the question of which edition of the Scriptures should be recommended for practical use. For centuries the Latin Vulgate edition, originally prepared by St. Jerome in the years 390–405 A.D., had been the standard Latin text in the West, and this was now declared to be in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic. The Council Fathers also discussed at length in the General Congregations the questions of the need to reexamine the original language Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and of the wisdom of using vernacular translations of the Scriptures, but chose not to speak to either of these points in the decrees. The needed revision of the Latin Vulgate edition was left by the council to the pope’s later initiative. A series of three papal commissions subsequently worked on this project with the result that in 1592 there appeared the Clementine edition, which, although still not the fully corrected version envisioned at Trent, has served as the Catholic Bible into the twentieth century. It is interesting to note that in 1591 Cardinal Bellarmine recommended, and actively worked on, the final version of the Clementine edition.⁴

    Of much greater historical importance, however, was the statement of the principle of tradition in the first decree. The relevant passage reads as follows:

    The Council also clearly maintains that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following then the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of equal piety and reverence both all the books of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both, and also the traditions themselves, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.⁵

    A number of points need to be carefully noted in this famous text. First its main thrust asserts the existence of unwritten traditions. Second these traditions, i.e., things transmitted as it were from hand to hand, are asserted to be either words spoken by Christ himself or by the Apostles themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As such they are taken to be divinely revealed truths, and to have been passed on from generation to generation within the Church in an unbroken succession up to the present day. Third, since God is the author of both the written revelation (i.e., Scripture) and the unwritten Apostolic traditions, each is to be received with equal piety and reverence (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia), and not merely with similar respect, a word used in earlier drafts but replaced by equal (pari) in one of the preparatory General Congregations. As we said above, the main point made by the council in this declaration on tradition was to assert the existence of a set of unwritten Apostolic traditions. This was intended to counter the view of Luther that revelation, and thereby salvation, comes through Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). This passage is thus seen to have its full significance only when understood in this Counter-Reformation context.

    Furthermore it should be carefully noted that, in the passage of the first decree quoted above, we have emphasized the word and. That single word covers a complex theological dispute which erupted at the council, and which had impact in the Galileo affair. The problem debated by the bishops was the following: If we grant that divine revelation comes to us under two forms, the written Scriptures and the unwritten traditions, should we say (1) that only part of the revelation is contained in each, or (2) that the whole of revelation is contained in each?⁶ It is certain that the first alternative was considered in detail in the General Congregations since the earlier versions of the decree contain the terms partly … partly … (partim … partim …). This would mean that tradition contains some revealed truths which are not contained in the Scriptures (and vice versa). But this met with strong opposition in the General Congregations by advocates of the second alternative. If the whole of revelation is contained in both Scripture and tradition, then neither contains a revealed truth not found in the other. This is closer to Luther’s Scripture alone principle, although it is fundamentally quite different from it since it does not reject tradition as a carrier of revelation, the main point of dispute in this area between the reformers and the council.

    Faced with this dispute about the double form of revelation, the council simply sidestepped the issue by replacing partly … partly … with and in the final version of the decree. In so doing, they chose not to speak to the question. Their purposes, i.e., rejecting Luther’s Scripture alone principle, were adequately served by stating that both Scripture and tradition express God’s revelation without specifying what content they may or may not share. This unresolved issue has been debated by Catholic theologians ever since, the most recent instance being in the decade immediately following Pope Pius XII’s proclamation in 1950 of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into heaven as a dogma of the Catholic faith.⁷

    In the latter half of the sixteenth century most of the theologians, including Bellarmine,⁸ understood the Fourth Session of Trent in the partly … partly … interpretation. In fact this was what gave rise to the two sources doctrine in the history of theology. But if this reading is granted, then one places an increased importance on the Fathers of the Church (e.g., Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria). For they constituted the chief links in the unbroken chain of succession from which one acquires some distinctive divinely revealed truths not otherwise known in the Scriptures. This helps to understand the prominence in the Galileo affair of the great respect for the common agreement of the Fathers, the significance of which may otherwise be missed. This was not merely a general respect for revered ancestors; it was rather a respect for what was understood to be the conduit for a unique body of truth revealed by God, which was to be held in a reverence equal, according to Trent, to that of Scripture itself. Whether the theologians contemporary with Galileo were correct in their understanding of the Fourth Session is not relevant at present. The fact is that that is what many, if not all, of them thought. The important consequent was that the unanimous agreement of the Fathers on matters pertaining to faith and morals was used by them as a touchstone to determine the content of the Apostolic tradition of revelation from God.

    As far as the Galileo affair is concerned, a still more significant decision of the council is to be found in the second paragraph of the second decree. The relevant passage reads as follows:

    Furthermore, to control petulant spirits, the Council decrees that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Sacred Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and meaning, has held and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who do otherwise shall be identified by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.⁹

    Again, to be properly understood, this passage must be read in the context of the Reformation. It is primarily a rejection of Luther’s doctrine of private interpretation, i.e., that the locus of determining the meaning of Scripture is in the individual person. Instead it is decreed that the Church is to serve as the judge of their true sense and interpretation. This passage is not about dogma but about authority. Note also that the unanimous agreement of the Fathers is mentioned explicitly, and is consistent with the principle of tradition affirmed in the first decree. As in the first decree, the phrase in matters of faith and of morals is used, but no specific criteria are provided in either passage as to how it is to be determined what is and what is not a matter of faith and morals. As we shall see, disputes in this area were to become a major factor in the Galileo affair. Finally it should be noted that this passage speaks only of who is to interpret Scripture, i.e., the Church, but not about how the interpretation is to be formulated. In short, principles of exegesis are simply not mentioned in the decree, although the Council Fathers were certainly aware of the elaborate principles and methods of biblical exegesis which had long ago been developed and employed in the history of the Church. As the years passed after the council, some theologians of the late sixteenth century read this passage to assert the primacy of literal interpretation. This simply is neither affirmed nor denied in the decree, which was concerned rather with what we may call the principle of interpretive authority.

    It should also be carefully noted in passing that this paragraph contains the widely used phrase "in rebus fidei et morum, which is usually but somewhat misleadingly translated as in matters of faith and morals. Mores is not limited to morality. It also includes such other practical" matters as the determination of the canon, edition, and translations of Scripture, the legitimacy of councils and papal elections, the canonization of saints, and the determination of the sacrament of ordination.

    The second paragraph of the second decree

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1