Again this is just factually inaccurate. Theologians were split on the issue about 50/50 at that time. The Pope did not go after all heliocentrists. He had a beef with Galileo, particularly for the disrespect Galileo had for him. So he slapped him down with heresy on the issue of geocentrism. But again, it's false to say this was a consensus belief in the church.
If the only issue was Galileo’s disrespect for the the pope, why was Galileo officially warned not to teach Copernicanism back in 1616 and Copernicicus’s
De Revolutionibus placed on the Index of Forbidden Books the same year, 16 years before the publication of Galileo’s
Dialogio that inulted the pope?
I don’t think the Copernican view was as widespread as you think. The main rival for classical geocetrism at the time wasn’t Copernicus, but Tycho Brahe, whose system had the sun and moon orbiting the earth with the other planets orbiting the sun. The Copernican system was popular, but as a mathematical model which simplified calculations, not as a description of fact. This was the position of Clavius, architect of the Julian Calendar and chief astronomer in the Jesuit College in Rome who was a friend of Galileo. He saw the advantages of the mathematical simplicity of Copernicus, but he remained a firm geocentrist all his life, committed to the Ptolemaic view.
There was a geocentric faction, just as there is a TE faction today. There were theologians that were quite dogmatic, and theologians much less dogmatic. In most cases you'll only find 1 or 2 quotes from theologians in the matter back then. That to me speaks volumes on the enthusiasm for geocentrism.
Is that based on reading through all the Latin texts on mathematics astronomy and theology back then? Arguing for a lack of interest in the subject back then based on your not knowing many references now, is not a great basis.
Fortunately with the translated quotes that are available through google, we not only have the opinion of the people themselves, but their testimony about the reactions of others.
Here are some showing how Copernicus was treated as a mathematical model rather than reality.
Therefore alongside the ancient hypotheses, which are no more probable, let us permit these new hypotheses also to become known, especially since they are admirable as well as simple and bring with them a huge treasure of very skillful observations. So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.
Andreas Osiander in the foreword to Copernicus' De Revolutionibus
It seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. To say that on the supposition of the Earth's movement and the Sun's quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatsoever. Such a manner of speaking is enough for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.
Cardinal Bellarmin Letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, 12 April 1615.
It was not just the Church that resisted the heliocentrism of Copernicus. Many prominent figures, in the decades following the 1543 publication of De Revolutionibus, regarded the Copernican model of the universe as a mathematical artifice which, though it yielded astronomical predictions of superior accuracy, could not be considered a true representation of physical reality: 'If Nicolaus Copernicus, the distinguished and incomparable master, in this work had not been deprived of exquisite and faultless instruments, he would have left us this science far more well-established. For he, if anybody, was outstanding and had the most perfect understanding of the geometrical and arithmetical requisites for building up this discipline. Nor was he in any respect inferior to Ptolemy; on the contrary, he surpassed him greatly in certain fields, particularly as far as the device of fitness and compendious harmony in hypotheses is concerned. And his apparently absurd opinion that the Earth revolves does not obstruct this estimate, because a circular motion designed to go on uniformly about another point than the very center of the circle, as actually found in the Ptolemaic hypotheses of all the planets except that of the Sun, offends against the very basic principles of our discipline in a far more absurd and intolerable way than does the attributing to the Earth one motion or another which, being a natural motion, turns out to be imperceptible. There does not at all arise from this assumption so many unsuitable consequences as most people think.'
Tycho Brahe from Letter to Christopher Rothman, 20 Jan 1587
Tycho not only shows us how Copernicus was treated as a mathematical model but also how widespread the response was among both theologians and scientists.
On how widespread geocentrism was, we have the testimony of both geocentrists and heliocentrists. First a geocentrist, our friend Bellarmine:
“the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”
Bellarmin ibid.
[FONT="]The Heliocentrists also agree they were in the minority, and faced a widespread hostile reaction for their views:[/FONT]
I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the causes of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. I have written up many reasons and refutations on the subject, but I have not dared until now to bring them into the open, being warned by the fortunes of Copernicus himself, our master, who procured for himself immortal fame among a few but stepped down among the great crowd (for this is how foolish people are to be numbered), only to be derided and dishonoured. I would dare publish my thoughts if there were many like you; but since there are not, I shall forbear.
Galileo Galilei Letter to Johannes Kepler, 4 Aug 1597
'He was a man of grave and cultivated mind, of rapid and mature intelligence; inferior to no preceding astronomer, unless in order of succession and time ; a man, who in natural ability was far superior to Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Eudoxus, and all those others who followed in their footsteps. What he was, he became through having liberated himself from certain false axioms of the common and vulgar philosophy — I will not say blindness. Nevertheless, he did not depart far from them ; because, studying mathematics rather than Nature, he failed to penetrate and dig deep enough altogether to cut away the roots of incongruous and vain principles, and thus, removing perfectly all opposing difficulties, free himself and others from so many empty investigations into things obvious and unchangeable. In spite of all this, who can sufficiently praise the magnanimity of this German, who, having little regard to the foolish multitude, stood firm against the torrent of contrary opinion.
Giordano Bruno The Ash Wednesday Supper (1584)
There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old, a prisoner to the inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licencers thought.
John Milton describing his visit to the 77 year old Galileo in a speech to the British Parlament, 24 Nov 1644.
For quotations from geocentrist theologians, in the protestant camp we have the infamous Martin Luther quote about Copernicus, I quoted Calvin in post
124 while in post
122 I quoted the condemnation of Galileo which was signed by 7 Cardinals.
So we, the subscribing Cardinals, pronounce.
Felix, Cardinal di Ascoli.
Guido, Cardinal Bentivoglio.
Desiderio, Cardinal di Cremona.
Antonio, Cardinal S. Onofrio.
Berlingero, Cardinal Gessi.
Fabrazio, Cardinal Verospi.
Martino, Cardinal Ginetti.
And I actually have a theory as to why. Geocentrism was a difficult model for many ancient theologians to swallow, even though it was considered mainstream science. For it put earth, God's footstool at the center of the world, with heaven, God's throne, revolving around it. That just didn't jive with scripture. In fact, descriptions of heaven began to change from a physical place to a spiritual non-corporial place in order to resolve the conflict and prevent God from revolving around us on earth. Heliocentrism resolved the issue a little, but modern views of a vast heavens fit the biblical text much better. It's no wonder to me geocentrism died a quick theological death.
I could if you want give you a long list of geocentric quotations from Church Fathers, I don't know of any who rejected geocentrism (nor did Bellarmine who was a lot better acquainted with their writings) Your problem with geocentrism and God's throne doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. I don't see why it would have been a problem anyway, didn't Ezekiel situate God's throne above the crystal firmament?
Ezek 1:22 (Douay Rheims)
And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.
23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other, every one with two wings covered his body, and the other was covered in like manner.
24 And I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, as it were the voice of the most high God: when they walked, it was like the voice of a multitude, like the noise of an army, and when they stood, their wings were let down.
25 For when a voice came from above the firmament, that was over their heads, they stood, and let down their wings.
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads, was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of the sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne, was the likeness of the appearance of a man above upon it.
When it comes to observational issue like like this, they certainly do. But when it comes to historical miracles, like creation, science can never come around. It violates the very core of its philosophical nature.
I think you are odds with the the church's historical approach to science and miracles there, an approach that would have united both the heliocentrist and geocentrists. The church has always distinguished between natural and miraculous by looking for natural explanations first. If there is a natural explanation then it isn't a supernatural miracle, it is God operating through providence. That is how TEs work too, it is YECs who have abandoned it.
To tell you the truth, I don't think most theologians thought about this event in cosmological terms at all. They were simply looking at it as an event of motion the way all events of motion must looked at—via a point of reference. Now some did use it to express cosmological views, or reinforce their own cosmological beliefs. Most didn't.
We use this kind of language to describe events like this every day, and cosmology often doesn't come to mind. It is a literal and accurate way to describe things.
It is hardly literal when the sun isn't moving. We may use these idioms to describe how the sun appears to move, but we do not mean it literally. However when someone doesn't know the motion of the earth describes the sun that way, not just going down and rising, but stopping and standing still in the middle of heaven and then hurrying to the place it sets, going down and hurrying to the place it rises, or running it course, why would we think they didn't meant what they said? Without our knowledge of modern astronomy was there any reason not to take the literal meaning at face value?
I don't think the writer, either, was expressing a belief in cosmology any more than the writer admonishing us not to move ancient border stones. Nor did the eunuch when he ordered his chariot to be stopped in order to be baptized by Philip. Nor does the police office who orders you to stop your vehicle. There's really no other way to describe motion events.
If you read the passage, the writer is describing the cyclical processes in nature, the water cycle creationists love to quote, the way the winds go round in circles back to their place of origin. The writer was making a point about the futility of human life go on generation after generation, but he made his point describing what he thought he was real cosmology.
