Below are three examples from the first half of Vatican II where Galileo is explicitly mentioned by name.


Bp. André Charue of Namur, Belgium, on 17 Nov. 1962, regarding a revision (p. 114-115) of the schema De sacra liturgia, said (p. 145):

Attendite, venerabiles Patres, ad conditionem eorum omnium, qui cuм fide catholica componere debent scientificuм laborem in universitatibus, in omnibus scientiarum circulis. Exemplum Galilaei et alia exempla recentiora sufficiant! Immaturae declarationes alicuius Concilii, propter earum solemnitatem, onerare possent, dicamus in semisaeculum, conditionem scientificorum.

[Beware, venerable Fathers, of the condition of all those who with catholic faith must compose scientific work, in all scientific circles. Let Galileo and the other more recent examples suffice! The immature declarations of some in this Council, because of their solemnity, could aggravate—we speak in the mid-century—the condition of the sciences.]

Bp. emeritus of Innsbruck, Austria, Paulus Rusch (1903-1986) explicitly mentioned Galileo during the 22^nd meeting, 19 Nov. 1962, in his intervention (p. 356-357) against ch. 2, #12 on inerrancy of the first schema the fathers discussed: De fontibus revelationis. Cdl. Siri's intervention, which mentioned Pope St. Pius X and Modernism, is on p. 38-39. The very next day, 61% of the council fathers rejected the schema (cf. Ratzinger Reader pp. 258 ff.). John XXIII thereafter called upon a mixed commission (incl. Cdl. Frings, whom Fr. Ratzinger advised, and Rahner) to redraft it. Cdl. Frings said (p. 34-35) the original schema was too scholastic and professorial in tone, "nec aedificans nec vivificans" ("neither edifying nor vivifying")!Here is De fontibus revelationis ch.2, #12 on inerrancy:

Because divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error [PTC had said "the infallibility and inerrancy] follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred author himself has erred, since divine Inspiration of itself as necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the author of any error whatever. [Pius XII, Divino afflante (EB 539), using the words of Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (D 1950); see also EB 44, 46, 125, 420, 463, etc.]

After giving an example of how Matt. 27:9 allegedly errs by quoting Jeremiah when it apparently was really quoting the prophet Zachary, Bp. Rusch said (p. 357):

Accedit nostram Ecclesiam hac in re iam duram passam esse experientiam. Anno 1633 Galilei sub Urbano VIII damnatus est, quia defendit doctrinam contra Scripturam. Doctrinam autem quam defendit erat, sicut notissimum est, terram circa solem rotare et non viceversa. [Additionally, our church has already suffered a hard experience in this matter. In 1633 Galileo was condemned under Urban VIII because he defended a doctrine contrary to Scripture. But the doctrine that he defended was, as is well-known, that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.]

Bp. Michel Darmancier (1918-1984), titular of Augurus, commenting on the "De ecclesiæ magistero" section (p. 47-54) of the 23 Nov. 1962 schema De ecclesia (p. 12 ff.), wrote in his "written animadversion" (p. 452):

De illis enim contingentibus elementis sicut in fide et theologia proprie dicta consentire possunt theologi per saecula et per totum orbem catholicuм, illa intimius coniungentes cuм dogmatibus, quin exinde oriatur quaevis certitudo de illorum veritate, etsi concludi potest fidem ex illis detrimentum non timere. Sic, usque ad saeculum XVI, unanimiter docuerunt theologi terram centrum universorum esse, unde Galileus quidam satis notas difficultates cuм sancta Inquisitione expertus est.

[The theologians can agree, throughout the ages and the whole catholic world, on those contingent elements in faith and theology properly speaking which are intimately connected with dogmas, which might not arise from any certainty of their truth, although to fear a loss of faith from them cannot be concluded. Thus, until the 16^th century, theologians unanimously taught that the earth was the center of the universe, whence Galileo experienced some well-known difficulties with the holy Inquisition.]

Improvements to the English translations welcome!

Is the Galileo issue really a big deal?

Yes, both in the field of physics and outside it.

Outside physics:
Why do you think Galileo was mentioned at Vatican II? It seems it's because Modernists like Henri Bouillard, S.J., who say "a theology which is not current is a false theology," want to recreate theology on the sandy, tentative foundations of changing physical theories rather than on the solid foundation St. Thomas laid down. Bouillard says (acting as though he's a spokesman for all of "modern thought"): "Renouncing Aristotelian physics, modern thought has also deserted the notions and schemes that have value only for Aristotelian physics. Because theology continues to offer meaning to the spirit and can fertilize and progress with it, it is necessary that it renounces these notions." (quoted in the intro. of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's Essence & Topicality of Thomism). In other words: Kill the roots of theology and create a New Theology. Thus, "faith is made subject to science" (Pascendi §17). Galileo, like Descartes, is seen by the Modernists as a liberator of "modern thought" from "Dark Ages" scholasticism.

Inside physics:
Physical theories are tentative, not dogma. There are many unexplained problems in physics and astronomy, such as the cosmological constant problem, in which there is a 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy between theory and observation.

corrected link URL:

cosmological constant problem

(For some reason, CathInfo is simply deleting spaces that occur in URLs instead of replacing them with "%20".)

In the actual docuмents of Vatican II we find the following:

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

The reference given to this passage was Fr Pio Paschini’s Life and Work of Galileo Galilei, a book on the Galileo case that had been subjected to ‘several hundred modifications’ after Fr Paschini died. Theology is the Queen of science and all others are under its dictates. There is no such thing as the rightful autonomy of science within the Catholic faith.

Few even noticed that a man convicted by the Church as suspected of heresy could be referenced in a council docuмent as being led by the hand of God, and that this council’s conclusion could be based on a book that was no better than a forgery.    

In a departing speech to the parish priests and clergy of Rome by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) on the occasion of his resignation from the papacy in February of 2013, the retired pope said the following:

‘For me it is a particular gift of Providence that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once more see my clergy, the clergy of Rome. It is always a great joy to see the living Church, to see how the Church in Rome is alive; there are shepherds here who guide the Lord’s flock in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd. It is a body of clergy that is truly Catholic, universal, in accordance with the essence of the Church of Rome… For today, given the conditions brought on by my age, I have not been able to prepare an extended discourse, as might have been expected; but rather what I have in mind are a few thoughts on the Second Vatican Council, as I saw it...  
     So the Cardinal [Frings] knew that he was on the right track and he invited me [Fr Joseph Ratzinger] to go with him to the Council, firstly as his personal advisor; and then, during the first session – I think it was in November 1962 – I was also named an official peritus of the Council. So off we went to the Council not just with joy but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible sense of expectation. We were hoping that all would be renewed, that there would truly be a new Pentecost, a new era of the Church, because the Church was still fairly robust at that time – Sunday Mass attendance was still good, vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already slightly reduced, but still sufficient. However, there was a feeling that the Church was not moving forward, that it was declining, that it seemed more a thing of the past and not the herald of the future. And at that moment, we were hoping that this relation would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church might once again be a force for tomorrow and a force for today. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress. Thus we were full of hope, full of enthusiasm, and also eager to play our own part in this process.’ --- L’Osservatore Romano, Feb 14, 2013, page 4, and Libreria Editrice Vaticana website.

And we all know what that 'marriage' between the Catholic Church and the modern world achieved. With no opposition to the ways of the world every Catholic country on earth sank into secularism. Christianity was no longer relevant to the people and was abandoned. Catechisms were abandoned,  churches emptied, vocations disappeared, and Galileo's science became the new religion on earth (heliocentrism, Nebular evolution, long-ages, Big Bang beginnings etc.

Quote from: Ratzinger

And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress.

Rat zinger says quite a lot here! Firstly, his statement proves geocentrism is a certainty, because the Church cannot err, as he asserts.  Secondly, Ratz is actively working to promote science falsely so-called that scripture warns about.  Thirdly, he shows that by use of "we" that he is working with others to accomplish the goal.  Fourthly, that "they" fully intend to carry their false science into the future so it must be of great importance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  Fifth, since there can be no union between the Church and the forces of the world,

Yes, as in these two condemned propositions:

Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization.

and

Catholicism is incompatible with true science.

RatZinger proves himself in cahoots with evil plans poised to marry darkness with light, seeking what cannot be, and therefore, a usurper, and fully united to Bergog.  Its amazing how transparent he is in just a few words.  There may be more, but these are the ones that stood out at first glance.

Excellent analysis