Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

[RonO]

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-michael-dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/

The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to be
optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam. This should
likely be taken in context. Denton has deistic notions that have never
been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to maintain their
"big tent" revival creationist scam. Nearly all the other ID perps and
IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in personal god that is
constantly involved in matters of our existence. Denton was one of the
original ID perp fellows, but he quit the ID scam when the other ID
perps did not appreciate his notions about god and evolution in his
second book. Denton admitted that biological evolution was a fact of
nature and his deistic notions of what the designer could be did not go
over well with the other ID perps. The other ID perps published their
discussion of Denton's book and Denton was not part of that discussion.
So Denton was no longer a fellow until he likely needed the money and
rejoined after the creationist defeat in Dover. Denton rejoined knowing
that the ID scam had just been a bait and switch effort since he had
left. ID had only been used as bait to push the ID perps obfuscation
and denial stupidity. Even after rejoining Denton has not been treated
very well. I put up one article where the interviewer was making fun of
Denton's claims of being an agnostic. The conclusion from that article
was that Denton had not been totally honest about the matter and that he
wasn't any type of agnostic that most people would relate to. Really,
the interviewer wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when
discussing the matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a back
sliding Christian.

So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they do
not want to believe in his designer.

#1. "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and around
the world."

This seems to be a lie. The ID network folded up and quit back in 2009,
and started COPE. They have since reactivated their web site, after
nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the obfuscation and
denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else. They still have not
made any press releases since around 2007. ARN discussion board and
uncommon descent were closed.

Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100% of
the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be noticeable. It
took around 6 years after the bait and switch was run on the Utah
creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia creationist rubes
to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after the bait and switch on
both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah rubes to make their effort
in 2017. There just are not that many creationist rubes out there that
do not understand that there has never been any ID science worth
teaching in the public schools

ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their Top
Six in their order that they must have occurred in this universe. Even
the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots after the Top Six
came out. You can go to the Reason to Believe site, now, and you will
be hard pressed to identify them as once being IDiots. They used to
claim that they were IDiots, but that they did not want to teach ID in
the public schools like the ID perps at the Discovery Institute.
Senator Santorum gave up on the ID scam after having the bait and switch
run on him in Dover in his home state. These guys did not quit being
creationists, they just quit being IDiotic creationist rubes.

#2. "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."

It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists. Tour
has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he does not
know how to do any ID science. Tour's origin of life claims are due to
his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't give up on the denial.
The origin of life is only used as a god-of-the-gaps denial argument.
TO found out that Biblical creationists do not want to believe in the
designer responsible for the origin of life on this planet after the Top
Six was put out. The designer of the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial
arguments is not the creator described in the Bible. MarkE, like Tour,
could not give up on the origin of life gap denial, but came to realize
that he did not want to believe in the designer of the gap that he was
trying to claim could not be filled by a natural occurrence. MarkE quit
posting when he could not reconcile the designer responsible for the
origin of life on this planet with the creator described in the Bible.
It is a lose lose proposition. Even if some designer is found to be
responsible for the origin of life on this planet it would not be the
Biblical designer, and the Bibilcal designer would end up to be the
false god. There is no point in the gap denial when you will have to
admit that the creation story in the Bible is metaphorical, and cannot
be taken literally.

#3. "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that the
mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian presumption that
everything must reducible to matter."

The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that just
because science currently cannot explain something, that is not support
for their alternative. It only means that their alternative has not
been ruled out. The problem with the reasoning behind #3 and why it
doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it really means that
the number of such claims has been constantly been getting smaller. In
the history of human kind there has been a 100% failure rate for claims
like these. Every single time we have finally figured out what is going
on, some god has been ruled out. What god makes the seasons change?
What god makes babies? No god-did-it claim has ever been verified. The
earth is not flat. There is no firmament above the earth that some god
opens up to let the rain fall through. The earth is not the center of
the universe with everything else spinning around us. The 7 days of
creation are not consistent with the order of the Top Six, nor the age
of the earth based on Genesis calculations.

The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity in
such a way that it killed ID on TO. Most of the IDiots posting did not
want to believe in the best evidence for ID. It turned out that they
had only been wallowing in the denial and never wanted to have the ID
perps succeed in producing any valid ID science. Any valid science
involving the Top Six would just be more science for Biblical
creationists to deny.

Ron Okimoto

[Kestrel Clayton]

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-michael-
dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to be
optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This should
likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that have never
been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to maintain their
"big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the other ID perps and
IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in personal god that is
constantly involved in matters of our existence.  Denton was one of the
original ID perp fellows, but he quit the ID scam when the other ID
perps did not appreciate his notions about god and evolution in his
second book.  Denton admitted that biological evolution was a fact of
nature and his deistic notions of what the designer could be did not go
over well with the other ID perps.  The other ID perps published their
discussion of Denton's book and Denton was not part of that discussion.
So Denton was no longer a fellow until he likely needed the money and
rejoined after the creationist defeat in Dover.  Denton rejoined knowing
that the ID scam had just been a bait and switch effort since he had
left.  ID had only been used as bait to push the ID perps obfuscation
and denial stupidity.  Even after rejoining Denton has not been treated
very well.  I put up one article where the interviewer was making fun of
Denton's claims of being an agnostic.  The conclusion from that article
was that Denton had not been totally honest about the matter and that he
wasn't any type of agnostic that most people would relate to.  Really,
the interviewer wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when
discussing the matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a back
sliding Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they do
not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and around
the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in 2009,
and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web site, after
nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the obfuscation and
denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.  They still have not
made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN discussion board and
uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100% of
the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be noticeable.  It
took around 6 years after the bait and switch was run on the Utah
creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia creationist rubes
to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after the bait and switch on
both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah rubes to make their effort
in 2017.  There just are not that many creationist rubes out there that
do not understand that there has never been any ID science worth
teaching in the public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their Top
Six in their order that they must have occurred in this universe.  Even
the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots after the Top Six
came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe site, now, and you will
be hard pressed to identify them as once being IDiots.  They used to
claim that they were IDiots, but that they did not want to teach ID in
the public schools like the ID perps at the Discovery Institute. Senator
Santorum gave up on the ID scam after having the bait and switch run on
him in Dover in his home state.  These guys did not quit being
creationists, they just quit being IDiotic creationist rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.  Tour
has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he does not
know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life claims are due to
his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't give up on the denial.
The origin of life is only used as a god-of-the-gaps denial argument. TO
found out that Biblical creationists do not want to believe in the
designer responsible for the origin of life on this planet after the Top
Six was put out.  The designer of the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial
arguments is not the creator described in the Bible.  MarkE, like Tour,
could not give up on the origin of life gap denial, but came to realize
that he did not want to believe in the designer of the gap that he was
trying to claim could not be filled by a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit
posting when he could not reconcile the designer responsible for the
origin of life on this planet with the creator described in the Bible.
It is a lose lose proposition.  Even if some designer is found to be
responsible for the origin of life on this planet it would not be the
Biblical designer, and the Bibilcal designer would end up to be the
false god.  There is no point in the gap denial when you will have to
admit that the creation story in the Bible is metaphorical, and cannot
be taken literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that the
mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian presumption that
everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that just
because science currently cannot explain something, that is not support
for their alternative.  It only means that their alternative has not
been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning behind #3 and why it
doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it really means that
the number of such claims has been constantly been getting smaller.  In
the history of human kind there has been a 100% failure rate for claims
like these.  Every single time we have finally figured out what is going
on, some god has been ruled out.  What god makes the seasons change?
What god makes babies?  No god-did-it claim has ever been verified.  The
earth is not flat.  There is no firmament above the earth that some god
opens up to let the rain fall through.  The earth is not the center of
the universe with everything else spinning around us.  The 7 days of
creation are not consistent with the order of the Top Six, nor the age
of the earth based on Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity in
such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the IDiots posting did not
want to believe in the best evidence for ID.  It turned out that they
had only been wallowing in the denial and never wanted to have the ID
perps succeed in producing any valid ID science.  Any valid science
involving the Top Six would just be more science for Biblical
creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure, I
did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next stalking
horse for the religious right's attempt to replace education with
catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, the ID scam appears
to have recruited too many true believers, who wouldn't give up even
when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was moribund. SURELY there
would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day after that... or a week from
next Tuesday, for sure!

[erik simpson]

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-michael-
dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to be
optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This should
likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that have
never been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to maintain
their "big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the other ID
perps and IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in personal god
that is constantly involved in matters of our existence.  Denton was
one of the original ID perp fellows, but he quit the ID scam when the
other ID perps did not appreciate his notions about god and evolution
in his second book.  Denton admitted that biological evolution was a
fact of nature and his deistic notions of what the designer could be
did not go over well with the other ID perps.  The other ID perps
published their discussion of Denton's book and Denton was not part of
that discussion. So Denton was no longer a fellow until he likely
needed the money and rejoined after the creationist defeat in Dover.
Denton rejoined knowing that the ID scam had just been a bait and
switch effort since he had left.  ID had only been used as bait to
push the ID perps obfuscation and denial stupidity.  Even after
rejoining Denton has not been treated very well.  I put up one article
where the interviewer was making fun of Denton's claims of being an
agnostic.  The conclusion from that article was that Denton had not
been totally honest about the matter and that he wasn't any type of
agnostic that most people would relate to.  Really, the interviewer
wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when discussing the
matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a back sliding
Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they
do not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and
around the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in
2009, and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web site,
after nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the obfuscation
and denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.  They still have
not made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN discussion board
and uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100%
of the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be
noticeable.  It took around 6 years after the bait and switch was run
on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia
creationist rubes to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after the
bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah rubes
to make their effort in 2017.  There just are not that many
creationist rubes out there that do not understand that there has
never been any ID science worth teaching in the public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their
Top Six in their order that they must have occurred in this universe.
Even the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots after the
Top Six came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe site, now, and
you will be hard pressed to identify them as once being IDiots.  They
used to claim that they were IDiots, but that they did not want to
teach ID in the public schools like the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute. Senator Santorum gave up on the ID scam after having the
bait and switch run on him in Dover in his home state.  These guys did
not quit being creationists, they just quit being IDiotic creationist
rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.
Tour has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he
does not know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life claims
are due to his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't give up on
the denial. The origin of life is only used as a god-of-the-gaps
denial argument. TO found out that Biblical creationists do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on this
planet after the Top Six was put out.  The designer of the Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is not the creator described in the
Bible.  MarkE, like Tour, could not give up on the origin of life gap
denial, but came to realize that he did not want to believe in the
designer of the gap that he was trying to claim could not be filled by
a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit posting when he could not reconcile
the designer responsible for the origin of life on this planet with
the creator described in the Bible. It is a lose lose proposition.
Even if some designer is found to be responsible for the origin of
life on this planet it would not be the Biblical designer, and the
Bibilcal designer would end up to be the false god.  There is no point
in the gap denial when you will have to admit that the creation story
in the Bible is metaphorical, and cannot be taken literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that
the mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian presumption
that everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that just
because science currently cannot explain something, that is not
support for their alternative.  It only means that their alternative
has not been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning behind #3 and
why it doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it really
means that the number of such claims has been constantly been getting
smaller.  In the history of human kind there has been a 100% failure
rate for claims like these.  Every single time we have finally figured
out what is going on, some god has been ruled out.  What god makes the
seasons change? What god makes babies?  No god-did-it claim has ever
been verified.  The earth is not flat.  There is no firmament above
the earth that some god opens up to let the rain fall through.  The
earth is not the center of the universe with everything else spinning
around us.  The 7 days of creation are not consistent with the order
of the Top Six, nor the age of the earth based on Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity
in such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the IDiots posting did
not want to believe in the best evidence for ID.  It turned out that
they had only been wallowing in the denial and never wanted to have
the ID perps succeed in producing any valid ID science.  Any valid
science involving the Top Six would just be more science for Biblical
creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure, I
did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next stalking
horse for the religious right's attempt to replace education with
catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, the ID scam appears
to have recruited too many true believers, who wouldn't give up even
when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was moribund. SURELY there
would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day after that... or a week from
next Tuesday, for sure!

Omphalism (last Thursdayism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[RonO]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-
michael- dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to be
optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This
should likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that
have never been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to
maintain their "big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the
other ID perps and IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in
personal god that is constantly involved in matters of our
existence.  Denton was one of the original ID perp fellows, but he
quit the ID scam when the other ID perps did not appreciate his
notions about god and evolution in his second book.  Denton admitted
that biological evolution was a fact of nature and his deistic
notions of what the designer could be did not go over well with the
other ID perps.  The other ID perps published their discussion of
Denton's book and Denton was not part of that discussion. So Denton
was no longer a fellow until he likely needed the money and rejoined
after the creationist defeat in Dover. Denton rejoined knowing that
the ID scam had just been a bait and switch effort since he had
left.  ID had only been used as bait to push the ID perps obfuscation
and denial stupidity.  Even after rejoining Denton has not been
treated very well.  I put up one article where the interviewer was
making fun of Denton's claims of being an agnostic.  The conclusion
from that article was that Denton had not been totally honest about
the matter and that he wasn't any type of agnostic that most people
would relate to.  Really, the interviewer wrote that Denton had a
"sly twinkle" in his eye when discussing the matter, and that he
admitted that he may only be a back sliding Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they
do not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and
around the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in
2009, and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web site,
after nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the obfuscation
and denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.  They still have
not made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN discussion board
and uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100%
of the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be
noticeable.  It took around 6 years after the bait and switch was run
on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia
creationist rubes to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after the
bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah
rubes to make their effort in 2017.  There just are not that many
creationist rubes out there that do not understand that there has
never been any ID science worth teaching in the public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their
Top Six in their order that they must have occurred in this universe.
Even the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots after the
Top Six came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe site, now, and
you will be hard pressed to identify them as once being IDiots.  They
used to claim that they were IDiots, but that they did not want to
teach ID in the public schools like the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute. Senator Santorum gave up on the ID scam after having the
bait and switch run on him in Dover in his home state.  These guys
did not quit being creationists, they just quit being IDiotic
creationist rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.
Tour has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he
does not know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life claims
are due to his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't give up on
the denial. The origin of life is only used as a god-of-the-gaps
denial argument. TO found out that Biblical creationists do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on this
planet after the Top Six was put out.  The designer of the Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is not the creator described in the
Bible.  MarkE, like Tour, could not give up on the origin of life gap
denial, but came to realize that he did not want to believe in the
designer of the gap that he was trying to claim could not be filled
by a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit posting when he could not
reconcile the designer responsible for the origin of life on this
planet with the creator described in the Bible. It is a lose lose
proposition. Even if some designer is found to be responsible for the
origin of life on this planet it would not be the Biblical designer,
and the Bibilcal designer would end up to be the false god.  There is
no point in the gap denial when you will have to admit that the
creation story in the Bible is metaphorical, and cannot be taken
literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that
the mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian
presumption that everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that
just because science currently cannot explain something, that is not
support for their alternative.  It only means that their alternative
has not been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning behind #3 and
why it doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it really
means that the number of such claims has been constantly been getting
smaller.  In the history of human kind there has been a 100% failure
rate for claims like these.  Every single time we have finally
figured out what is going on, some god has been ruled out.  What god
makes the seasons change? What god makes babies?  No god-did-it claim
has ever been verified.  The earth is not flat.  There is no
firmament above the earth that some god opens up to let the rain fall
through.  The earth is not the center of the universe with everything
else spinning around us.  The 7 days of creation are not consistent
with the order of the Top Six, nor the age of the earth based on
Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity
in such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the IDiots posting
did not want to believe in the best evidence for ID.  It turned out
that they had only been wallowing in the denial and never wanted to
have the ID perps succeed in producing any valid ID science.  Any
valid science involving the Top Six would just be more science for
Biblical creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure, I
did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next
stalking horse for the religious right's attempt to replace education
with catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, the ID scam
appears to have recruited too many true believers, who wouldn't give
up even when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was moribund. SURELY
there would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day after that... or a
week from next Tuesday, for sure!

Omphalism (last Thursdayism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The last bit of creation science out of the ICR at the turn of the
century before the ID scam took over TO was their RATE project. In
their first report of what they had found they concluded that the the
theory of radiometric dating was sound, and that the age of the rocks
should be able to be dated using those methods. Their final conclusion
for the project was that the rocks were really as young as the Bible
claimed they had to be, and that their designer had just made it so that
they all had the components to make them look much older than they
actually were. Somehow after the initial creation event that produced
rocks that looked billions of years old their god made the lava and ash
from volcanic activity to have the components that would make them look
much older than they actually were even though current volcanic acivity
does not produce ash and lava with the older composition.
God-did-it-that-way was their explanation for why the rocks look as old
as they do.

Ron Okimoto

[Kestrel Clayton]

Post by RonO

Post by erik simpson

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-
michael- dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to
be optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This
should likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that
have never been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to
maintain their "big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the
other ID perps and IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in
personal god that is constantly involved in matters of our
existence.  Denton was one of the original ID perp fellows, but he
quit the ID scam when the other ID perps did not appreciate his
notions about god and evolution in his second book.  Denton admitted
that biological evolution was a fact of nature and his deistic
notions of what the designer could be did not go over well with the
other ID perps.  The other ID perps published their discussion of
Denton's book and Denton was not part of that discussion. So Denton
was no longer a fellow until he likely needed the money and rejoined
after the creationist defeat in Dover. Denton rejoined knowing that
the ID scam had just been a bait and switch effort since he had
left.  ID had only been used as bait to push the ID perps
obfuscation and denial stupidity.  Even after rejoining Denton has
not been treated very well.  I put up one article where the
interviewer was making fun of Denton's claims of being an agnostic.
The conclusion from that article was that Denton had not been
totally honest about the matter and that he wasn't any type of
agnostic that most people would relate to.  Really, the interviewer
wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when discussing the
matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a back sliding
Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they
do not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and
around the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in
2009, and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web site,
after nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the
obfuscation and denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.
They still have not made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN
discussion board and uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100%
of the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be
noticeable.  It took around 6 years after the bait and switch was
run on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia
creationist rubes to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after
the bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah
rubes to make their effort in 2017.  There just are not that many
creationist rubes out there that do not understand that there has
never been any ID science worth teaching in the public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their
Top Six in their order that they must have occurred in this
universe. Even the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots
after the Top Six came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe
site, now, and you will be hard pressed to identify them as once
being IDiots.  They used to claim that they were IDiots, but that
they did not want to teach ID in the public schools like the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. Senator Santorum gave up on the ID
scam after having the bait and switch run on him in Dover in his
home state.  These guys did not quit being creationists, they just
quit being IDiotic creationist rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.
Tour has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he
does not know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life
claims are due to his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't
give up on the denial. The origin of life is only used as a god-of-
the-gaps denial argument. TO found out that Biblical creationists do
not want to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of
life on this planet after the Top Six was put out.  The designer of
the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is not the creator
described in the Bible.  MarkE, like Tour, could not give up on the
origin of life gap denial, but came to realize that he did not want
to believe in the designer of the gap that he was trying to claim
could not be filled by a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit posting
when he could not reconcile the designer responsible for the origin
of life on this planet with the creator described in the Bible. It
is a lose lose proposition. Even if some designer is found to be
responsible for the origin of life on this planet it would not be
the Biblical designer, and the Bibilcal designer would end up to be
the false god.  There is no point in the gap denial when you will
have to admit that the creation story in the Bible is metaphorical,
and cannot be taken literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that
the mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian
presumption that everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that
just because science currently cannot explain something, that is not
support for their alternative.  It only means that their alternative
has not been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning behind #3
and why it doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it
really means that the number of such claims has been constantly been
getting smaller.  In the history of human kind there has been a 100%
failure rate for claims like these.  Every single time we have
finally figured out what is going on, some god has been ruled out.
What god makes the seasons change? What god makes babies?  No god-
did-it claim has ever been verified.  The earth is not flat.  There
is no firmament above the earth that some god opens up to let the
rain fall through.  The earth is not the center of the universe with
everything else spinning around us.  The 7 days of creation are not
consistent with the order of the Top Six, nor the age of the earth
based on Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial
stupidity in such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the IDiots
posting did not want to believe in the best evidence for ID.  It
turned out that they had only been wallowing in the denial and never
wanted to have the ID perps succeed in producing any valid ID
science.  Any valid science involving the Top Six would just be more
science for Biblical creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure,
I did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next
stalking horse for the religious right's attempt to replace education
with catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, the ID scam
appears to have recruited too many true believers, who wouldn't give
up even when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was moribund.
SURELY there would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day after
that... or a week from next Tuesday, for sure!

Omphalism (last Thursdayism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The last bit of creation science out of the ICR at the turn of the
century before the ID scam took over TO was their RATE project.  In
their first report of what they had found they concluded that the the
theory of radiometric dating was sound, and that the age of the rocks
should be able to be dated using those methods.  Their final conclusion
for the project was that the rocks were really as young as the Bible
claimed they had to be, and that their designer had just made it so that
they all had the components to make them look much older than they
actually were.  Somehow after the initial creation event that produced
rocks that looked billions of years old their god made the lava and ash
from volcanic activity to have the components that would make them look
much older than they actually were even though current volcanic acivity
does not produce ash and lava with the older composition. God-did-it-
that-way was their explanation for why the rocks look as old as they do.

There was a time I wondered why creationists were so untroubled by the
theological implications of a liar-god who fabricates evidence against
his own existence, so as to send more people into eternal torture. Back
then I didn't understand two vital things about white American Christian
fundamentalism: One, it's essentially gnostic; and two, their idea of
Heaven is a sort of whitebread gated community, where the residents
pride themselves on keeping most people out.

[RonO]

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO

Post by erik simpson

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-
michael- dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to
be optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This
should likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that
have never been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to
maintain their "big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the
other ID perps and IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in
personal god that is constantly involved in matters of our
existence.  Denton was one of the original ID perp fellows, but he
quit the ID scam when the other ID perps did not appreciate his
notions about god and evolution in his second book.  Denton
admitted that biological evolution was a fact of nature and his
deistic notions of what the designer could be did not go over well
with the other ID perps.  The other ID perps published their
discussion of Denton's book and Denton was not part of that
discussion. So Denton was no longer a fellow until he likely needed
the money and rejoined after the creationist defeat in Dover.
Denton rejoined knowing that the ID scam had just been a bait and
switch effort since he had left.  ID had only been used as bait to
push the ID perps obfuscation and denial stupidity.  Even after
rejoining Denton has not been treated very well.  I put up one
article where the interviewer was making fun of Denton's claims of
being an agnostic. The conclusion from that article was that Denton
had not been totally honest about the matter and that he wasn't any
type of agnostic that most people would relate to.  Really, the
interviewer wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when
discussing the matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a
back sliding Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that
they do not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and
around the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in
2009, and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web
site, after nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the
obfuscation and denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.
They still have not made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN
discussion board and uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down
100% of the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be
noticeable.  It took around 6 years after the bait and switch was
run on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West
Virginia creationist rubes to try again in 2023, and it took 4
years after the bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas in 2013
for the Utah rubes to make their effort in 2017.  There just are
not that many creationist rubes out there that do not understand
that there has never been any ID science worth teaching in the
public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their
Top Six in their order that they must have occurred in this
universe. Even the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots
after the Top Six came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe
site, now, and you will be hard pressed to identify them as once
being IDiots.  They used to claim that they were IDiots, but that
they did not want to teach ID in the public schools like the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. Senator Santorum gave up on the
ID scam after having the bait and switch run on him in Dover in his
home state.  These guys did not quit being creationists, they just
quit being IDiotic creationist rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James
Tour’s Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee
Cronin was telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.
Tour has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he
does not know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life
claims are due to his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't
give up on the denial. The origin of life is only used as a god-of-
the-gaps denial argument. TO found out that Biblical creationists
do not want to believe in the designer responsible for the origin
of life on this planet after the Top Six was put out.  The designer
of the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is not the creator
described in the Bible.  MarkE, like Tour, could not give up on the
origin of life gap denial, but came to realize that he did not want
to believe in the designer of the gap that he was trying to claim
could not be filled by a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit posting
when he could not reconcile the designer responsible for the origin
of life on this planet with the creator described in the Bible. It
is a lose lose proposition. Even if some designer is found to be
responsible for the origin of life on this planet it would not be
the Biblical designer, and the Bibilcal designer would end up to be
the false god.  There is no point in the gap denial when you will
have to admit that the creation story in the Bible is metaphorical,
and cannot be taken literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization
that the mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian
presumption that everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that
just because science currently cannot explain something, that is
not support for their alternative.  It only means that their
alternative has not been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning
behind #3 and why it doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding
when it really means that the number of such claims has been
constantly been getting smaller.  In the history of human kind
there has been a 100% failure rate for claims like these.  Every
single time we have finally figured out what is going on, some god
has been ruled out. What god makes the seasons change? What god
makes babies?  No god- did-it claim has ever been verified.  The
earth is not flat.  There is no firmament above the earth that some
god opens up to let the rain fall through.  The earth is not the
center of the universe with everything else spinning around us.
The 7 days of creation are not consistent with the order of the Top
Six, nor the age of the earth based on Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial
stupidity in such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the
IDiots posting did not want to believe in the best evidence for
ID.  It turned out that they had only been wallowing in the denial
and never wanted to have the ID perps succeed in producing any
valid ID science.  Any valid science involving the Top Six would
just be more science for Biblical creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure,
I did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next
stalking horse for the religious right's attempt to replace
education with catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats,
the ID scam appears to have recruited too many true believers, who
wouldn't give up even when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was
moribund. SURELY there would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day
after that... or a week from next Tuesday, for sure!

Omphalism (last Thursdayism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The last bit of creation science out of the ICR at the turn of the
century before the ID scam took over TO was their RATE project.  In
their first report of what they had found they concluded that the the
theory of radiometric dating was sound, and that the age of the rocks
should be able to be dated using those methods.  Their final
conclusion for the project was that the rocks were really as young as
the Bible claimed they had to be, and that their designer had just
made it so that they all had the components to make them look much
older than they actually were.  Somehow after the initial creation
event that produced rocks that looked billions of years old their god
made the lava and ash from volcanic activity to have the components
that would make them look much older than they actually were even
though current volcanic acivity does not produce ash and lava with the
older composition. God-did-it- that-way was their explanation for why
the rocks look as old as they do.

There was a time I wondered why creationists were so untroubled by the
theological implications of a liar-god who fabricates evidence against
his own existence, so as to send more people into eternal torture. Back
then I didn't understand two vital things about white American Christian
fundamentalism: One, it's essentially gnostic; and two, their idea of
Heaven is a sort of whitebread gated community, where the residents
pride themselves on keeping most people out.

God-fearing Christians are the above type of creationists. They submit
to God's discipline because they think that it would be worse if they
did not.

Sad, but obviously true. Taking the Bible "literally" is just their
excuse for their behavior. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to
believe are this type.

My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church. It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.

Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:08:28 -0600, RonO <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of. We found out
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.

Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist. What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.

"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".

Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

Post by RonO
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.

Post by RonO
What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".
Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

No, he didn't.

Post by RonO
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
Here is what the Church does say:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

<quote>

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

'It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church.'

And von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):

'The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.'

It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

</quote>


That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

Post by RonO
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.

Post by RonO
What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".
Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

No, he didn't.

Your senseless denial is noted.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote>
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

Because it had already been declared to be a heresy back in 1616.

The source that you have been in denial of had the church documentation
of the change in status of the heresy. He was a priest, and he cited
the official church documents on the matter.

Post by Martin Harran
'It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church.'
'The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.'

The church banned the Copernican writings after the 1616 change, and had
to unban them after better sense prevailed. The argument was that
geocentrism was not cannon, and accounts claim that Copernicus' book was
in the Jesuit library at the time.

Post by Martin Harran
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

It was made into a capital heresy from whatever it was before in 1616.
Bruno had been convicted of it, but it was some type of lesser heresy at
that time, and he was executed for other beliefs. That conservative
Catholic source was not happy that heliocentrism had been down graded
because he remains a geocentrist. His consolation was that the matter
had only been downgraded to what it was before 1616, and that good
Catholics should still be geocentrists like the church fathers. One of
those church fathers had already admonished the true believers like that
Priest. Saint Augustine had already told the faithful that they should
not use the Bible to deny what their senses could tell them about
nature. The church fathers may have all been geocentrists, but Greek
geocentrists were not flat earthers. The circumference of the earth had
been estimated using physical measurements a couple of centuries before
Christ was born and the geocentrists did not hold with the flat earth
cosmology of the Bible.

Post by Martin Harran
</quote>
That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

This was after the conclave cited by the conservative Catholic priest
that down graded the heliocentric heresy to what it remains as today.

Why could you not refute that priest's citations? Those were official
church documents not just an encyclopedia entry. That priest confirmed
that heliocentrism was not a heresy punishable by death until after
Bruno was executed. It was upgraded to a capital heresy in 1616, and
that is what Galileo was facing. It was not down graded to a lesser
heresy until the 19th century.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.

Post by RonO
What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".
Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

No, he didn't.

Your senseless denial is noted.

Your failure to cite a recognised historian who supports your claim is
even more noted.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote>
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

Because it had already been declared to be a heresy back in 1616.

No, it wasn't. Have you even read what I posted above where various
theologians and independent historians have pointed out that
Inquisition did not have the power or authority to declare a heresy?

Post by RonO
The source that you have been in denial of had the church documentation
of the change in status of the heresy. He was a priest, and he cited
the official church documents on the matter.

You haven't been able to tell us the name of the priest or say what
documents he cited.

Ignoring recognised authorities inside and outside the Church and
relying on the word of an unnamed priest who is daft enough to
subscribe to geocentrism is the same behaviour as those you scorn for
turning to places like AIG and writer like Stephen Meyer to find out
about evolution.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
'It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church.'
'The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.'

The church banned the Copernican writings after the 1616 change, and had
to unban them after better sense prevailed.

Copernicus's writings were being placed on the Index was nothing to do
with heresy; it was because the Church authorities thought he went too
far in polemically claiming his ideas were *proof* of heliocentrism
and asked him to make some fairly modest edits to make clear they were
only theoretical at that stage. When the edits were made, it was
removed from the Index.

I posted about this over 6 years ago with supporting cites:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WiNC5hwHE8A/m/yp51Qxy2BQAJ

Post by RonO
The argument was that
geocentrism was not cannon, and accounts claim that Copernicus' book was
in the Jesuit library at the time.

Post by Martin Harran
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

It was made into a capital heresy from whatever it was before in 1616.
Bruno had been convicted of it,

No, he was not even charged with heresy, let alone be found guilty of
it. Burkhard gave a very detailed explanation of this with supporting
references [1] the last time you tried to claim it but you clearly
suffer from a selective memory problem where you simply discard
anything that challenges your pet theories no matter how strong the
supporting evidence against them is.

[1]
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RyVl6vtkYzw/m/AbMWnkyPAwAJ

Post by RonO
but it was some type of lesser heresy at
that time, and he was executed for other beliefs. That conservative
Catholic source was not happy that heliocentrism had been down graded
because he remains a geocentrist. His consolation was that the matter
had only been downgraded to what it was before 1616, and that good
Catholics should still be geocentrists like the church fathers. One of
those church fathers had already admonished the true believers like that
Priest. Saint Augustine had already told the faithful that they should
not use the Bible to deny what their senses could tell them about
nature. The church fathers may have all been geocentrists, but Greek
geocentrists were not flat earthers. The circumference of the earth had
been estimated using physical measurements a couple of centuries before
Christ was born and the geocentrists did not hold with the flat earth
cosmology of the Bible.

Post by Martin Harran
</quote>
That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

This was after the conclave cited by the conservative Catholic priest
that down graded the heliocentric heresy to what it remains as today.
Why could you not refute that priest's citations?

Kinda hard to refute citations when you haven't give nany indication
of what the citations were.

Post by RonO
Those were official
church documents not just an encyclopedia entry. That priest confirmed
that heliocentrism was not a heresy punishable by death until after
Bruno was executed. It was upgraded to a capital heresy in 1616, and
that is what Galileo was facing. It was not down graded to a lesser
heresy until the 19th century.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.

Post by RonO
What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".
Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

No, he didn't.

Your senseless denial is noted.

Your failure to cite a recognised historian who supports your claim is
even more noted.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote>
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

Because it had already been declared to be a heresy back in 1616.

No, it wasn't. Have you even read what I posted above where various
theologians and independent historians have pointed out that
Inquisition did not have the power or authority to declare a heresy?

Post by RonO
The source that you have been in denial of had the church documentation
of the change in status of the heresy. He was a priest, and he cited
the official church documents on the matter.

You haven't been able to tell us the name of the priest or say what
documents he cited.
Ignoring recognised authorities inside and outside the Church and
relying on the word of an unnamed priest who is daft enough to
subscribe to geocentrism is the same behaviour as those you scorn for
turning to places like AIG and writer like Stephen Meyer to find out
about evolution.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
'It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church.'
'The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.'

The church banned the Copernican writings after the 1616 change, and had
to unban them after better sense prevailed.

Copernicus's writings were being placed on the Index was nothing to do
with heresy; it was because the Church authorities thought he went too
far in polemically claiming his ideas were *proof* of heliocentrism
and asked him to make some fairly modest edits to make clear they were
only theoretical at that stage. When the edits were made, it was
removed from the Index.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WiNC5hwHE8A/m/yp51Qxy2BQAJ

Post by RonO
The argument was that
geocentrism was not cannon, and accounts claim that Copernicus' book was
in the Jesuit library at the time.

Post by Martin Harran
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

It was made into a capital heresy from whatever it was before in 1616.
Bruno had been convicted of it,

No, he was not even charged with heresy, let alone be found guilty of
it. Burkhard gave a very detailed explanation of this with supporting
references [1] the last time you tried to claim it but you clearly
suffer from a selective memory problem where you simply discard
anything that challenges your pet theories no matter how strong the
supporting evidence against them is.
[1]
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RyVl6vtkYzw/m/AbMWnkyPAwAJ

Post by RonO
but it was some type of lesser heresy at
that time, and he was executed for other beliefs. That conservative
Catholic source was not happy that heliocentrism had been down graded
because he remains a geocentrist. His consolation was that the matter
had only been downgraded to what it was before 1616, and that good
Catholics should still be geocentrists like the church fathers. One of
those church fathers had already admonished the true believers like that
Priest. Saint Augustine had already told the faithful that they should
not use the Bible to deny what their senses could tell them about
nature. The church fathers may have all been geocentrists, but Greek
geocentrists were not flat earthers. The circumference of the earth had
been estimated using physical measurements a couple of centuries before
Christ was born and the geocentrists did not hold with the flat earth
cosmology of the Bible.

Post by Martin Harran
</quote>
That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

This was after the conclave cited by the conservative Catholic priest
that down graded the heliocentric heresy to what it remains as today.
Why could you not refute that priest's citations?

Kinda hard to refute citations when you haven't give nany indication
of what the citations were.

Post by RonO
Those were official
church documents not just an encyclopedia entry. That priest confirmed
that heliocentrism was not a heresy punishable by death until after
Bruno was executed. It was upgraded to a capital heresy in 1616, and
that is what Galileo was facing. It was not down graded to a lesser
heresy until the 19th century.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

It's certainly true that Bruno was not executed for heliocentrism. He
expressed belief in a number of heretical ideas, including Hermetic
Neoplatonism. This last notion was probably the main reason he was burnt.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time. Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics. When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church. We found that out in the last major dust up. The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates. As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.

Post by RonO
What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.

Post by RonO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".
Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

No, he didn't.

Your senseless denial is noted.

Your failure to cite a recognised historian who supports your claim is
even more noted.

You go find that thread. You must recall your inability to deal with
reality then. My eternal September doesn't go back that far.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

This seems to be similar to the source, but seems to be rewritten or
someone else's version. This one claims that the council of Trent
classified heliocentrism as a heresy. It doesn't seem to have the same
conclave reports cited, but it has the Congregation of the Index in 1616
as condeming all writings about Copernicanism. That seems to have been
held the same year that it was designated as a formal heresy.

It is later followed by a statement that Galileo was being charged with
the heresy of being contrary to a fixed earth.

QUOTE:
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy:
“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…have
rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine
which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that
the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west
and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world…after it has
been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture…From which we
are content that you be absolved, provided that…you abjure, curse, and
detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error
and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope
Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by
enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against
books holding the Copernican system as truth.
END QUOTE:

Galileo did face the death penalty.

This source does not have the 19th century (I think that it was sometime
like 1833) conclave report that downgraded heliocentrism to what it is
today (some type of lesser heretical transgression) but it does have
further evidence that geocentrism was never given up on by the Catholic
church with examples into the 20th century. This source doesn't seem to
be interested in what kind of heresy heliocentrism was. It just
supports that it was the heresy that Galileo was being tried for, and
that it remains something that should not be denied by good Catholics.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy. That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo. That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical. It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account. It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote>
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

Because it had already been declared to be a heresy back in 1616.

No, it wasn't. Have you even read what I posted above where various
theologians and independent historians have pointed out that
Inquisition did not have the power or authority to declare a heresy?

REPOST:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.

"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".

Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.
END REPOST:

The wiki confirms the conservative Catholic priest's take on what
happened in 1616.

Denial is stupid at this time.

You did not have any valid response the first time you got the evidence
of what had happened.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The source that you have been in denial of had the church documentation
of the change in status of the heresy. He was a priest, and he cited
the official church documents on the matter.

You haven't been able to tell us the name of the priest or say what
documents he cited.

Why should I remember everything? You posted your worthless response
and ran from the material then, and this is all that you can do now.

Post by Martin Harran
Ignoring recognised authorities inside and outside the Church and
relying on the word of an unnamed priest who is daft enough to
subscribe to geocentrism is the same behaviour as those you scorn for
turning to places like AIG and writer like Stephen Meyer to find out
about evolution.

The link above is to a similar source that has the same views. You were
the one that named the priest the last time. The web page had no author
listed just like the link above, and that priest likely had nothing to
do with the wiki repost link stating that it was the heresy charges that
Galileo faced.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
'It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church.'
'The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.'

The church banned the Copernican writings after the 1616 change, and had
to unban them after better sense prevailed.

Copernicus's writings were being placed on the Index was nothing to do
with heresy; it was because the Church authorities thought he went too
far in polemically claiming his ideas were *proof* of heliocentrism
and asked him to make some fairly modest edits to make clear they were
only theoretical at that stage. When the edits were made, it was
removed from the Index.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WiNC5hwHE8A/m/yp51Qxy2BQAJ

Look at it in context of what you are denying. What else happened in 1616?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The argument was that
geocentrism was not cannon, and accounts claim that Copernicus' book was
in the Jesuit library at the time.

Post by Martin Harran
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

It was made into a capital heresy from whatever it was before in 1616.
Bruno had been convicted of it,

No, he was not even charged with heresy, let alone be found guilty of
it. Burkhard gave a very detailed explanation of this with supporting
references [1] the last time you tried to claim it but you clearly
suffer from a selective memory problem where you simply discard
anything that challenges your pet theories no matter how strong the
supporting evidence against them is.
[1]
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RyVl6vtkYzw/m/AbMWnkyPAwAJ

The sources that we found the last time claimed that Bruno had been
found guilty of it, but it was not what he was executed for. It was
some type of transgression, and the status did change. The Geocentrism
wiki supports this change in status.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but it was some type of lesser heresy at
that time, and he was executed for other beliefs. That conservative
Catholic source was not happy that heliocentrism had been down graded
because he remains a geocentrist. His consolation was that the matter
had only been downgraded to what it was before 1616, and that good
Catholics should still be geocentrists like the church fathers. One of
those church fathers had already admonished the true believers like that
Priest. Saint Augustine had already told the faithful that they should
not use the Bible to deny what their senses could tell them about
nature. The church fathers may have all been geocentrists, but Greek
geocentrists were not flat earthers. The circumference of the earth had
been estimated using physical measurements a couple of centuries before
Christ was born and the geocentrists did not hold with the flat earth
cosmology of the Bible.

Post by Martin Harran
</quote>
That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

This was after the conclave cited by the conservative Catholic priest
that down graded the heliocentric heresy to what it remains as today.
Why could you not refute that priest's citations?

Kinda hard to refute citations when you haven't give nany indication
of what the citations were.

Post by RonO
Those were official
church documents not just an encyclopedia entry. That priest confirmed
that heliocentrism was not a heresy punishable by death until after
Bruno was executed. It was upgraded to a capital heresy in 1616, and
that is what Galileo was facing. It was not down graded to a lesser
heresy until the 19th century.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century. It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is. There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father. Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do. He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time. Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

I have no appetite for wading through the numerous errors in your post
that have been well covered several times in the past. I will,
however, make clear that I make no apology whatsoever for dismissing
out of hand an anonymous blog post trying to make the case for
geocentrism and that Galileo was wrong, implying that the Catholic
Church were justified in treating him the way they did. You couldn't
even identify the author in whom you were putting so much faith. but
Ernest Major identified him as John Salza, an attorney who is a
self-appointed apologist for the Catholic Church but has no
theological or historian qualifications or authority to speak for the
Churc; ironic echoes of another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, setting
himself up as an authority on evolution! It seems to height of
hypocrisy for you to castigate other people for taking basing their
opinions on what Johnson says yet be happy to form yours from what
Salza says.

[snip stuff that desn't improve with repetition]

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time. Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

I have no appetite for wading through the numerous errors in your post
that have been well covered several times in the past. I will,
however, make clear that I make no apology whatsoever for dismissing
out of hand an anonymous blog post trying to make the case for
geocentrism and that Galileo was wrong, implying that the Catholic
Church were justified in treating him the way they did. You couldn't
even identify the author in whom you were putting so much faith. but
Ernest Major identified him as John Salza, an attorney who is a
self-appointed apologist for the Catholic Church but has no
theological or historian qualifications or authority to speak for the
Churc; ironic echoes of another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, setting
himself up as an authority on evolution! It seems to height of
hypocrisy for you to castigate other people for taking basing their
opinions on what Johnson says yet be happy to form yours from what
Salza says.
[snip stuff that desn't improve with repetition]

Just like the last time. I recall that it was you, and you called him a
conservative catholic preist at the time. Nothing was said about him
being a lawyer. I found the material on line because it was Major that
claimed that heliocentrism did not carry the death penalty at the time
Bruno was tried. I found it looking for confirmation of what Major had
claimed. That source confirmed what Major had claimed, and had the
citations of the Conclave reports that changed the status to one that
carried the death penalty. It was similar to what I just put up, and
that you have snipped out.

This is pretty much what you did last time. Why can't you deal with the
source that I just put up? It doesn't matter if the guy is a lawyer or
a priest, you have to deal with the material presented. The source that
I just put up has about the same material except it doesn't have the
references about the status change of the heresy. It just notes that it
was a heresy, and is the heresy that Galileo faced.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time. Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

I have no appetite for wading through the numerous errors in your post
that have been well covered several times in the past. I will,
however, make clear that I make no apology whatsoever for dismissing
out of hand an anonymous blog post trying to make the case for
geocentrism and that Galileo was wrong, implying that the Catholic
Church were justified in treating him the way they did. You couldn't
even identify the author in whom you were putting so much faith. but
Ernest Major identified him as John Salza, an attorney who is a
self-appointed apologist for the Catholic Church but has no
theological or historian qualifications or authority to speak for the
Churc; ironic echoes of another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, setting
himself up as an authority on evolution! It seems to height of
hypocrisy for you to castigate other people for taking basing their
opinions on what Johnson says yet be happy to form yours from what
Salza says.
[snip stuff that desn't improve with repetition]

Just like the last time. I recall that it was you, and you called him a
conservative catholic preist at the time. Nothing was said about him
being a lawyer.

No, I didn't say that anything about him being a priest at that time;
I simply pointed out that if the best you could find was an anonymous
article, that really should have given you pause for thought.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/eASJA9dLBAAJ

I did refer to him as a priest earlier in this current thread but that
was *me* misremembering. When I went back and checked, I found he was
a lawyer and unlike *you*, I have no problem admitting to an error and
correcting it.

Post by RonO
I found the material on line because it was Major that
claimed that heliocentrism did not carry the death penalty at the time
Bruno was tried. I found it looking for confirmation of what Major had
claimed. That source confirmed what Major had claimed, and had the
citations of the Conclave reports that changed the status to one that
carried the death penalty. It was similar to what I just put up, and
that you have snipped out.

You first introduced the site in a thread you started titled
'Geocentrism and Christianity' back in 2020. Here's your starter post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/nCd0oh2NAwAJ

Just hours after you posted the above, Ernest Major identified the
author as Jon Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/dESEYVCwAwAJ

Ernest described him as "an anti-Mason, and a Catholic apologist… [and
that] … Wikipedia thinks that he's not notable."

In that Geocentrism and Christianity' thread, he made four posts
relating to the Catholic Church about geocentrism:

1 He identified Salza as the author of that site (link above)

2 He explained in a reply to you how he figured out that is was Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/po1MiCK3AwAJ

3) In reply a comment by Burkhard comment 'Oh, that guy! Rare case of
a catholic YEC …." he responded that "He [Salza] seems very keen on
deferring to the Church Fathers, but not so far as to defer to
Augustine's instruction to let empirical data trump scriptural
interpretation."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/1UQZ5pa2AwAJ

4) He commented that he didn't see where you got the 1850 date for the
Church's "reaffirmation of geocentrism". Perhaps his questioning that
particular date is what you are misremembering even though he said
nothing at all about a death penalty.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/v4fNh_0IBAAJ

He did contribute some other posts in the thread but they were about
the Cathholic Church's attitude to science in general and nature of
fundamentalism. No reference at all to geocentrsim, heresy, or death
penalty.

I have thoroughly searched my own Agent archive and also GG I cannot
find anything anywhere by Ernest about heliocentrism and the death
penalty so it's obviously your faulty memory.

Post by RonO
This is pretty much what you did last time. Why can't you deal with the
source that I just put up? It doesn't matter if the guy is a lawyer or
a priest, you have to deal with the material presented. The source that
I just put up has about the same material except it doesn't have the
references about the status change of the heresy. It just notes that it
was a heresy, and is the heresy that Galileo faced.

I have dealt with it several times including in that particular thread
where I gave the Catholic Church's own statement about it and the
supporting conclusions of eminent scholars like Augustus De Morgan and
von Gebler.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/-mVloL6LBwAJ

I really can't do anything about you deciding to handwave away the
conclusions of reputable authorities in favour of a guy arguing for
geocentrism other than reminding you that you regularly castigate
others for exactly that sort of behaviour.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed. It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.

Post by RonO
We found out

Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time. Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

I have no appetite for wading through the numerous errors in your post
that have been well covered several times in the past. I will,
however, make clear that I make no apology whatsoever for dismissing
out of hand an anonymous blog post trying to make the case for
geocentrism and that Galileo was wrong, implying that the Catholic
Church were justified in treating him the way they did. You couldn't
even identify the author in whom you were putting so much faith. but
Ernest Major identified him as John Salza, an attorney who is a
self-appointed apologist for the Catholic Church but has no
theological or historian qualifications or authority to speak for the
Churc; ironic echoes of another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, setting
himself up as an authority on evolution! It seems to height of
hypocrisy for you to castigate other people for taking basing their
opinions on what Johnson says yet be happy to form yours from what
Salza says.
[snip stuff that desn't improve with repetition]

Just like the last time. I recall that it was you, and you called him a
conservative catholic preist at the time. Nothing was said about him
being a lawyer.

No, I didn't say that anything about him being a priest at that time;
I simply pointed out that if the best you could find was an anonymous
article, that really should have given you pause for thought.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/eASJA9dLBAAJ
I did refer to him as a priest earlier in this current thread but that
was *me* misremembering. When I went back and checked, I found he was
a lawyer and unlike *you*, I have no problem admitting to an error and
correcting it.

Post by RonO
I found the material on line because it was Major that
claimed that heliocentrism did not carry the death penalty at the time
Bruno was tried. I found it looking for confirmation of what Major had
claimed. That source confirmed what Major had claimed, and had the
citations of the Conclave reports that changed the status to one that
carried the death penalty. It was similar to what I just put up, and
that you have snipped out.

You first introduced the site in a thread you started titled
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/nCd0oh2NAwAJ
Just hours after you posted the above, Ernest Major identified the
author as Jon Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/dESEYVCwAwAJ
Ernest described him as "an anti-Mason, and a Catholic apologist… [and
that] … Wikipedia thinks that he's not notable."
In that Geocentrism and Christianity' thread, he made four posts
1 He identified Salza as the author of that site (link above)
2 He explained in a reply to you how he figured out that is was Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/po1MiCK3AwAJ
3) In reply a comment by Burkhard comment 'Oh, that guy! Rare case of
a catholic YEC …." he responded that "He [Salza] seems very keen on
deferring to the Church Fathers, but not so far as to defer to
Augustine's instruction to let empirical data trump scriptural
interpretation."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/1UQZ5pa2AwAJ
4) He commented that he didn't see where you got the 1850 date for the
Church's "reaffirmation of geocentrism". Perhaps his questioning that
particular date is what you are misremembering even though he said
nothing at all about a death penalty.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/v4fNh_0IBAAJ
He did contribute some other posts in the thread but they were about
the Cathholic Church's attitude to science in general and nature of
fundamentalism. No reference at all to geocentrsim, heresy, or death
penalty.
I have thoroughly searched my own Agent archive and also GG I cannot
find anything anywhere by Ernest about heliocentrism and the death
penalty so it's obviously your faulty memory.

Post by RonO
This is pretty much what you did last time. Why can't you deal with the
source that I just put up? It doesn't matter if the guy is a lawyer or
a priest, you have to deal with the material presented. The source that
I just put up has about the same material except it doesn't have the
references about the status change of the heresy. It just notes that it
was a heresy, and is the heresy that Galileo faced.

I have dealt with it several times including in that particular thread
where I gave the Catholic Church's own statement about it and the
supporting conclusions of eminent scholars like Augustus De Morgan and
von Gebler.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/-mVloL6LBwAJ
I really can't do anything about you deciding to handwave away the
conclusions of reputable authorities in favour of a guy arguing for
geocentrism other than reminding you that you regularly castigate
others for exactly that sort of behaviour.

So you found the thread. The whole point is that it doesn't matter if
the guy was a priest or a lawyer. You could not address his citations
that just backed up what else could be found on the web, and you can't
deal with the evidence now except to make disparaging remarks about the
author instead of address what he had written and the documents he put up.

The current link has been modified from what it was. The conclave
reports that were previously cited from 1822 and 1831 (I had recalled
those dates as being around 1833 earlier) are no longer up on the web
site. I should have quoted from the material instead of just giving the
link because those citations are no longer included in the current site.
They were supposed to be when the church softened their position on
the heliocentric heresy and put it back to what it was when Bruno faced
the charges (1600), but the author claimed that geocentrism was still
the church doctrine. Those are no longer included in the geocentric
section, but the author still has the evidence that it remained a church
issue into the 20th century.

The current site is claiming that the Council of Trent 1564 set
geocentrism as infallible church doctrine, and would have been what
Bruno faced, but the claim is, at that time, the church had no set
position on heliocentrism. It cites the 1616 banning Copernican
writings, but not the 1616 Inquisition's claim of formal heresy against
Galileo. The claim is that all the church fathers were geocentrists
including Augustine. My take is that Augustine would not have condoned
heliocentrism becoming a formal heresy, but geocentrism was his
cosmology at the time that he lived.

The Geocentrism Wiki cited previously in this thread claims that in 1616
the Inquisition called Galileo's indiscretions a formal heresy.

This type of evidence can't be countered by making disparaging remarks
about the author.

At the time of the previous thread we could find other sources that
backed the claims, but they didn't have the specific citations in many
cases. A couple mentioned the Council of Trent, but did not go into
details as to why that meant heliocentrism was a heresy.

The facts are consistent with a moveable earth (heliocentrism) not being
a heresy that carried the death penalty when Bruno was convicted of it
(cosmology is among the list of charges that he was found guilty of) and
he was not executed for those beliefs. The status of the heresy changed
when the protestants started to make a fuss about the church being too
lenient on such heretics. By 1616 when Galileo was first being
investigated for the heresy it had reached the point where the
Copernican writings were banned, and Galileo was being investigated for
supporting a formal heresy. The current source has the quote from
Galileo's trial in 1633 where he faced the death penalty.

QUOTE:
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy:
“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…have
rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine
which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that
the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west
and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world…after it has
been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture…From which we
are content that you be absolved, provided that…you abjure, curse, and
detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error
and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope
Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by
enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against
books holding the Copernican system as truth.

1633 – Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and
unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and
heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever
contrary to the Holy Church…but, should I know any heretic or person
suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the
inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…”

1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he
solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s
movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new
official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596
to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our
Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of
these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield
to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
END QUOTE:

The 1664 part of the quote is likely a formating error and should be a
paragraph separate from the 1633 Galileo paragraph, as I have it.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

You can't deny reality by making disparaging remarks about the author
and then running away.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Why is my reply not posting?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 09 Dec 2024 14:44:52 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
Why is my reply not posting?

OK, posted now, must have been some errant character(s) in the text.

[Martin Harran]

[...]

Post by RonO
So you found the thread.

I've never had a problem finding stuff on GG, it was you that couldn't
do so.

Post by RonO
The whole point is that it doesn't matter if
the guy was a priest or a lawyer. You could not address his citations
that just backed up what else could be found on the web, and you can't
deal with the evidence now

I did deal with them. I gave you the link above where I did so but you
choose to just ignore it. Here it is again:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/-mVloL6LBwAJ

Post by RonO
except to make disparaging remarks about the
author instead of address what he had written and the documents he put up.

I'd rather be guilty of dissing a crackpot geocentrist that dissing
the conclusions of eminent scholars like Augustus De Morgan and von
Gerber like you do.

Post by RonO
The current link has been modified from what it was. The conclave
reports that were previously cited from 1822 and 1831 (I had recalled
those dates as being around 1833 earlier) are no longer up on the web
site. I should have quoted from the material instead of just giving the
link because those citations are no longer included in the current site.

You have previously used the Wayback Machine but seem reluctant to do
so with this site, possibly because none of the 2020 version sof the
site that I have checked refer to either of those dates. That doesn't
surprise me in regard to 1822 as that was when the College of
Cardinals declared that the "publication of works treating of the
motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with
the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." That is a complete
contradiction of Salza's claim that the Church Fathers unanimously
believed in geocentrsim so it could not be changed by the Church.

I haven't a clue what you are refrring to in 1831; the only conclave I
can find in that year was the one that elected Pope Gregory XVI I
can't see any connection between that and heliocentrism.

Post by RonO
They were supposed to be when the church softened their position on
the heliocentric heresy and put it back to what it was when Bruno faced
the charges (1600), but the author claimed that geocentrism was still
the church doctrine.

In other words, he reckons he understands Catholic rules better than
the cardinals. He's a crackpot, pure and simple.

Post by RonO
Those are no longer included in the geocentric
section, but the author still has the evidence that it remained a church
issue into the 20th century.
The current site is claiming that the Council of Trent 1564 set
geocentrism as infallible church doctrine,

No, it is NOT what the current site claims. It states:

<quote>
In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly
declared that that no one could "in matters of faith and of morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the
sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers."
</quote>

Note the *faith and morals* qualification.

Salza, the author of the site, then goes onto provide a series of
quote mines which *he* tries to make out to show geocentrism as the
unanimous belief of the Fathers. Like all quote mining, it's bullshit.


In further quote mining, he tries to make out that in his
Providentissimus Deus encyclical of 1893 encyclical, Pope Leo XIII
reaffirmed Salza's interpretation of Trent ; Pope Leo didn't do so,
he affirmed that "the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority,
whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the
Bible, as pertaining to the *doctrine of faith or morals*" (my
emphasis added). In the same encyclical, The Pope goes on to
completely destroy Salza's arguments:

"If, then, apparent contradiction [between science and scripture] be
met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious
theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the
true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the
hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty
is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the
contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we
may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the
interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion
itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend
judgment for the time being."

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Post by RonO
and would have been what
Bruno faced, but the claim is, at that time, the church had no set
position on heliocentrism. It cites the 1616 banning Copernican
writings, but not the 1616 Inquisition's claim of formal heresy against
Galileo. The claim is that all the church fathers were geocentrists
including Augustine. My take is that Augustine would not have condoned
heliocentrism becoming a formal heresy, but geocentrism was his
cosmology at the time that he lived.
The Geocentrism Wiki cited previously in this thread claims that in 1616
the Inquisition called Galileo's indiscretions a formal heresy.

Nobody is disputing that they called it heresy. The point you are
either incapable of or unwilling to grasp is that made by Augustus De
Morgan and von Gerber -the Inquisition were wrong to charge Galileo
with heresy as heliocentrism had never been declared a heresy and
they did not have the power to declare it as one as the Church itself
says:

"As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the
Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of
infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a
dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope
approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say,
to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the
circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his
assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not
alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree
ex cathedra"

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Galileo's trial was essentially the Vatican equivalent of a Soviet
style show trial with trumped up charges. The Church itself even
admits that in the same article where it goes on to quote Augustus De
Morgan:

"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."

Post by RonO
This type of evidence can't be countered by making disparaging remarks
about the author.

It can be countered by giving the contradictory evidence from
reputable scholars which is what I have done, several times. You
simply choose to ignore it.

Post by RonO
At the time of the previous thread we

Please stop using 'we' when you mean yourself - you are not royalty.

Post by RonO
could find other sources that
backed the claims, but they didn't have the specific citations in many
cases. A couple mentioned the Council of Trent, but did not go into
details as to why that meant heliocentrism was a heresy.
The facts are consistent with a moveable earth (heliocentrism) not being
a heresy that carried the death penalty when Bruno was convicted of it
(cosmology is among the list of charges that he was found guilty of) and
he was not executed for those beliefs. The status of the heresy changed
when the protestants started to make a fuss about the church being too
lenient on such heretics. By 1616 when Galileo was first being
investigated for the heresy it had reached the point where the
Copernican writings were banned, and Galileo was being investigated for
supporting a formal heresy. The current source has the quote from
Galileo's trial in 1633 where he faced the death penalty.
“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…have
rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine
which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that
the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west
and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world…after it has
been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture…From which we
are content that you be absolved, provided that…you abjure, curse, and
detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error
and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope
Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by
enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against
books holding the Copernican system as truth.

As the quote from the Catholic Church that I gave you above shows, "in
forma communi" did not make it a heresy.

Salza ia a typical case of somebody who knows a little but knows far
less than he thinks he knows. I still can't undetsand why you give any
credence to a guy who is trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Post by RonO
1633 – Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and
unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and
heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever
contrary to the Holy Church…but, should I know any heretic or person
suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the
inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…”
1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he
solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s
movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new
official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596
to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our
Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of
these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield
to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
The 1664 part of the quote is likely a formating error and should be a
paragraph separate from the 1633 Galileo paragraph, as I have it.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/
You can't deny reality by making disparaging remarks about the author
and then running away.

You can't make your case by sticking your fingers in your ear when you
are given the conclusions of the Church itself along with independent
reputable scholars.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
So you found the thread.

I've never had a problem finding stuff on GG, it was you that couldn't
do so.

Post by RonO
The whole point is that it doesn't matter if
the guy was a priest or a lawyer. You could not address his citations
that just backed up what else could be found on the web, and you can't
deal with the evidence now

I did deal with them. I gave you the link above where I did so but you
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/-mVloL6LBwAJ

This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.

QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:

Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:

It looks like your source has changed it's tune, but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

I did find a site that still waffles about what happened.

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-new-geocentrism-and-strict-canonical-interpretation/

This site is battling neo Geocentric catholics, but it doesn't do a very
convincing job. They have to admit that Galileo was facing a formal
heresy in 1616, and that the 1616 Index did ban the heretical Copernican
writings, but their claim is that the 1616 Inquisition report was only
cited by the 1633 heresy trial of Galileo, and that the 1616 report
wasn't "adopted" by the 1633 inquisition group. They claim that a
strict reading of the sentence everyone quotes never claims that
heliocentrism was a formal heresy even though it is named as the heresy
that Galileo faced. They claim that no Pope has ever claimed
geocentrism to be infallible church doctrine, but so what?

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:

Your type of denialists claim that this quote has been misinterpreted
into claiming that heliocentrism was a heresy and that Galileo was being
charged with holding belief in that heresy. The claim is that Galileo
was actually convicted of going back on his oath to not support the
Copernican heresy in 1616. This seems to just be doublespeak to deny
that the church was once wrong about making heliocentrism into a formal
heresy.

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;
END QUOTE:

How is this being misinterpreted? They call it a heresy, they define
what the heresy is, and they claim that Galileo is suspected of holding
such a heretical belief against scripture.

In stead of a misinterpretation, they would be better off claiming that
the sentence against Galileo was incorrectly written or he was being
sentenced for the wrong thing. If the conviction was for going back on
his oath from 1616 what does that say about that 1616 heresy report not
being "adopted" by the 1633 court proceedings? It was deemed to be a
formal heresy in that report.

So even the denialists claim that it was a heresy (1616 material that
they put up), but they claim that no official judgement about the heresy
was made in 1633 because the the sentence has been misinterpreted.

They claim that numerous scholars have interpreted things correctly, but
the evidence looks like those scholars have the incorrect interpretation.

This site also admits that the Pope had ordered copies of Galileo's
abjuration and sentence to be disseminated throughout the church that
included the heliocentric heresy claims, but the claim is that it was
not an official recognition of heliocentrism being a heresy. The author
admits that the church wanted to quash the heliocentric view, but that
it was not being declared to be official church doctrine by the Pope.

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/but-how-to-explain-that-the-1633-decree-was-disseminated-throughout-the-church/

QUOTE:
Of course I readily admit that the seventeenth century hierarchy did not
want Copernicanism spread and took steps to prevent it. The pope made a
prudential decision that Copernicanism would be harmful to the common
good of the Church and he moved strongly against it. But the rest of
Sungenis’s analysis is flawed by the same fundamental errors and
exaggerations we’ve already examined.
END QUOTE:


I should note that this site also claims that some Pope resolved the
issue in 1820 by removing Copernican writings from all the banned lists,
and claiming that the matter could be discussed among Catholics.

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/

QUOTE:
Decree

[Rome], 1820 VIII 16

Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe
Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University,
regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which
he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding
the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine
Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this
request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the
consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal
Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those
who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in
the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He
has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this
work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of
Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any
difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the
subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius
VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions]
be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation
and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task
of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing
of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future,
regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the
Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the
authorization of the Superior of his Order. [1]
END QUOTE:

It should be noted that this did not happen until 1820.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
except to make disparaging remarks about the
author instead of address what he had written and the documents he put up.

I'd rather be guilty of dissing a crackpot geocentrist that dissing
the conclusions of eminent scholars like Augustus De Morgan and von
Gerber like you do.

Post by RonO
The current link has been modified from what it was. The conclave
reports that were previously cited from 1822 and 1831 (I had recalled
those dates as being around 1833 earlier) are no longer up on the web
site. I should have quoted from the material instead of just giving the
link because those citations are no longer included in the current site.

You have previously used the Wayback Machine but seem reluctant to do
so with this site, possibly because none of the 2020 version sof the
site that I have checked refer to either of those dates. That doesn't
surprise me in regard to 1822 as that was when the College of
Cardinals declared that the "publication of works treating of the
motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with
the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." That is a complete
contradiction of Salza's claim that the Church Fathers unanimously
believed in geocentrsim so it could not be changed by the Church.
I haven't a clue what you are refrring to in 1831; the only conclave I
can find in that year was the one that elected Pope Gregory XVI I
can't see any connection between that and heliocentrism.

Post by RonO
They were supposed to be when the church softened their position on
the heliocentric heresy and put it back to what it was when Bruno faced
the charges (1600), but the author claimed that geocentrism was still
the church doctrine.

In other words, he reckons he understands Catholic rules better than
the cardinals. He's a crackpot, pure and simple.

Post by RonO
Those are no longer included in the geocentric
section, but the author still has the evidence that it remained a church
issue into the 20th century.
The current site is claiming that the Council of Trent 1564 set
geocentrism as infallible church doctrine,

<quote>
In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly
declared that that no one could "in matters of faith and of morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the
sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers."
</quote>
Note the *faith and morals* qualification.
Salza, the author of the site, then goes onto provide a series of
quote mines which *he* tries to make out to show geocentrism as the
unanimous belief of the Fathers. Like all quote mining, it's bullshit.
In further quote mining, he tries to make out that in his
Providentissimus Deus encyclical of 1893 encyclical, Pope Leo XIII
reaffirmed Salza's interpretation of Trent ; Pope Leo didn't do so,
he affirmed that "the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority,
whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the
Bible, as pertaining to the *doctrine of faith or morals*" (my
emphasis added). In the same encyclical, The Pope goes on to
"If, then, apparent contradiction [between science and scripture] be
met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious
theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the
true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the
hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty
is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the
contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we
may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the
interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion
itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend
judgment for the time being."
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Post by RonO
and would have been what
Bruno faced, but the claim is, at that time, the church had no set
position on heliocentrism. It cites the 1616 banning Copernican
writings, but not the 1616 Inquisition's claim of formal heresy against
Galileo. The claim is that all the church fathers were geocentrists
including Augustine. My take is that Augustine would not have condoned
heliocentrism becoming a formal heresy, but geocentrism was his
cosmology at the time that he lived.
The Geocentrism Wiki cited previously in this thread claims that in 1616
the Inquisition called Galileo's indiscretions a formal heresy.

Nobody is disputing that they called it heresy. The point you are
either incapable of or unwilling to grasp is that made by Augustus De
Morgan and von Gerber -the Inquisition were wrong to charge Galileo
with heresy as heliocentrism had never been declared a heresy and
they did not have the power to declare it as one as the Church itself
"As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the
Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of
infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a
dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope
approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say,
to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the
circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his
assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not
alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree
ex cathedra"
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Galileo's trial was essentially the Vatican equivalent of a Soviet
style show trial with trumped up charges. The Church itself even
admits that in the same article where it goes on to quote Augustus De
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."

Post by RonO
This type of evidence can't be countered by making disparaging remarks
about the author.

It can be countered by giving the contradictory evidence from
reputable scholars which is what I have done, several times. You
simply choose to ignore it.

Post by RonO
At the time of the previous thread we

Please stop using 'we' when you mean yourself - you are not royalty.

Post by RonO
could find other sources that
backed the claims, but they didn't have the specific citations in many
cases. A couple mentioned the Council of Trent, but did not go into
details as to why that meant heliocentrism was a heresy.
The facts are consistent with a moveable earth (heliocentrism) not being
a heresy that carried the death penalty when Bruno was convicted of it
(cosmology is among the list of charges that he was found guilty of) and
he was not executed for those beliefs. The status of the heresy changed
when the protestants started to make a fuss about the church being too
lenient on such heretics. By 1616 when Galileo was first being
investigated for the heresy it had reached the point where the
Copernican writings were banned, and Galileo was being investigated for
supporting a formal heresy. The current source has the quote from
Galileo's trial in 1633 where he faced the death penalty.
“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…have
rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine
which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that
the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west
and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world…after it has
been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture…From which we
are content that you be absolved, provided that…you abjure, curse, and
detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error
and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope
Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by
enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against
books holding the Copernican system as truth.

As the quote from the Catholic Church that I gave you above shows, "in
forma communi" did not make it a heresy.
Salza ia a typical case of somebody who knows a little but knows far
less than he thinks he knows. I still can't undetsand why you give any
credence to a guy who is trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Post by RonO
1633 – Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and
unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and
heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever
contrary to the Holy Church…but, should I know any heretic or person
suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the
inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…”
1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he
solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s
movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new
official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596
to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our
Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of
these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield
to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
The 1664 part of the quote is likely a formating error and should be a
paragraph separate from the 1633 Galileo paragraph, as I have it.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/
You can't deny reality by making disparaging remarks about the author
and then running away.

You can't make your case by sticking your fingers in your ear when you
are given the conclusions of the Church itself along with independent
reputable scholars.

[Martin Harran]

You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.

Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.


Point of Order:
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 07:31:12 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.

Or argue about something else. It's scarcely about origins.

Post by Martin Harran
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:20:32 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 07:31:12 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.

Or argue about something else. It's scarcely about origins.

Feel free to start a different discussion.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John

Post by Martin Harran
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza. Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza. They
are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced
in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only
cited in 1633. This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that
Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he
gave in that 1616 incident. If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616
findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning
the charge of heresy?

You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in
order to get all the links and previous quotes.

The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that
Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is
guilty. The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very
wrong. Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong
about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge by the Inquisition in 1616.

They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in
2020. The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541.
This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with. It was not a
formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably
because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and
had not been claimed to be a formal heresy. This changed after Bruno as
the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by
1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy. Even
the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about
Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that
Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.

Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and
continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.

The situation had not changed by 1633. It looks like the reason that
the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to
be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be
questioned. That seems stupid because that should have been out the
window a millennia ago. The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that,
but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout
the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy. The
appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong. Church
scholars were already worried about this issue before the official
appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened.
Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that
he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was
not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the
proceedings and rulings.

You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that
Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the
stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in
regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:

They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy. They define the heresy,
and they claim that Galileo is guilty.

The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong
about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism
being a formal heresy by 1616. This source claims that the 1616
Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that
seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was
found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the
Inquisition.

The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy. Your site,
Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this. Bruno faced
this heresy charge, but it wasn't a "formal" heresy at that time. It
had not yet been specifically claimed to be against church doctrine. By
the time that Galileo faced the charge in 1616 it is admitted that it
had been made into a formal heresy, and that Copernican writings had
been banned in 1616 as being heretical. This had not changed by 1633,
but the claim is that that 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 judgement
against Galileo even though the alternate charge that Galileo is
supposed to have been guilty of is breaking his oath to the 1616
Inquisition. The Galileo stupidity seems to be special pleading
nonsense that isn't even self consistent. If the 1616 judgement had not
been adopted why would Galileo have been found guilty of breaking his
oath? Why would the 1616 oath be important if it was forced onto him
unjustly? Why would Galileo have had to deny any support for the
heliocentric heresy, and promise not to do any such thing for the rest
of his life? How can his sentencing be misinterpreted? He is charged
with heresy, the heresy is defined, and he is claimed to be guilty of
supporting that heresy. The Anti-geocentrism site just claims that it
is not called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing, but that site admits
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He likely faced the
death in 1633, but that needs to be denied in order to protect the
Pope's actions. It sounds like other charges came to dominate because
they did not want to kill Galileo. They just wanted him to stop
supporting the heliocentric heresy, and they made him swear not to do it
anymore.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

In regard to your continuing insistence that there have been changes
to my source, why don't you use the Wayback machine to show what has
changed? You can't because it hasn't changed, it's exactly as it was
published in 1907. You simply imagine stuff and convince yourself it
is true.

Post by RonO
You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza. Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza.

So you can't find a single qualified historian to back you up, not
even one.

That should really, really give you food for thought but you have a
long record of not being able to get rid of your pet theories no
matter how ridiculous they make you look.


[snip stuff that doesn't improve with regurgitation.]

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

In regard to your continuing insistence that there have been changes
to my source, why don't you use the Wayback machine to show what has
changed? You can't because it hasn't changed, it's exactly as it was
published in 1907. You simply imagine stuff and convince yourself it
is true.

If it did not change you would have been guilty of quote mining the
site. They clearly call heliocentrism a heresy when discussing what
Galileo faced in 1616 and 1633. That can't be denied except that you
snipped out the quotes that I put up from the site.

What you snipped out and ran from above:

REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.

QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:

Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:

It looks like your source has changed it's tune, but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.
END REPOST:

Your site changed it tune or you quote mined it to say what you wanted
to present it as saying anything different. If the above quotes existed
when you used the site, you obviously quote mined to conclude what you
wanted to conclude. There is no doubt that they are claiming heresy.

Your source calls what Galileo was charged with in 1615 a "heresy" or
"heretical" and continued to refer to it as a heresy in their discussion
of 1633.

The other catholic site that I found that was still waffling about the
Galileo affair agreed that Galileo faced a formal charge of heresy in
1616, but they claim that the inquisitions judgement was not "adopted"
by the 1633 court. They claim that it was only "cited" by the 1633
judgement.

Salza and the site that claims Salza is wrong about Galileo agree that
the Council of Trent in 1541 made heliocentrism into a heresy, but it
was not declared to be a formal heresy until the time that Galileo was
being investigated for it around 1616. The informal heresy charge would
have been what Bruno was found guilty of, and it did not carry the death
penalty at that time, but the inquisition elevated the heresy by 1616.

The anti-Salza site (they are against neo-gencentric catholics) agrees
with Salza that heliocentrism was a formal heresy in 1616, but they
claim that those findings were not adopted by the 1633 court in order to
protect the Pope from being fallible.

The Galileo sentencing that you snipped out calls it a heresy, defines
the heresy that Galileo is supposed to be guilty of and claims that they
find him guilty of the heresy. The reinterpretation of this sentencing
seems to be a pretty stretched reinterpretation.

That full quote comes from the anti-Salza site. They put in the whole
quote so that their claim that it was never called a "formal" heresy
could be documented. The sentencing only called it a heresy, but that
site also acknowledges that it had been previously stated to be a formal
heresy by the inquisition in other postings.

Trent made heliocentrism into a heresy. Bruno would have faced this
heresy charge, but it wasn't made into a formal heresy by the
inquisition until the time that Galileo was being investigated for it
around 1616. At that time Copernican writings were also banned as being
heretical. It was the heresy defined in Galileo's sentencing in 1633.

That is what your old source, Salza, and the anti-neogeocentric site
agree with.

The only difference is that the anti-neogeocentric site does not think
that Galileo would have faced the death penalty because they claim that
the Inquistion findings of 1616 were not "adopted" by the 1633 court,
and that Galileo did not face a charge of "formal" heresy. The stupid
thing about this claim, made to protect papal infallibility, they have
to claim that Galileo was not found guilty of the heliocentric heresy,
but the reinterpretation of his sentencing would have Galileo guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. How could that matter if the
1633 court did not adopt the 1616 inquisition judgement?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza. Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza.

So you can't find a single qualified historian to back you up, not
even one.

Your own site backs me up. If you want to deny that they were qualified
historians, do that. You claimed that they were catholics discussing
catholic history. Salza is a catholic, and the anti-Salza site was
catholics against catholics. Even the guys that want to side with some
of your claims understand what the reality was.

You can't just snip out the evidence and run.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran
That should really, really give you food for thought but you have a
long record of not being able to get rid of your pet theories no
matter how ridiculous they make you look.
[snip stuff that doesn't improve with regurgitation.]

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

That statement, along with your earlier blethering about "minor"
heresy and heresy being "downgraded" shows that you really haven't a
clue about what heresy means or how it is handled within the Catholic
Church.

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza.

That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
controversy".

That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
skills in your excellent scientific posts so it has to be your
beliefs about this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
don't let you absorb anything contradictory.

Post by RonO
Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza. They
are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced
in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only
cited in 1633. This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that
Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he
gave in that 1616 incident. If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616
findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning
the charge of heresy?
You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in
order to get all the links and previous quotes.
The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that
Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is
guilty. The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very
wrong. Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong
about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge by the Inquisition in 1616.
They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in
2020. The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541.

No it didn't mention anything at all about heliocentrism; what you
have is Salza quoting the decree correctly (contradictory to what you
previously claimed) and then trying to stretch it to *indirectly*
include heliocentrism. All explained to you above but you choose to
just keep ignoring it.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with. It was not a
formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably
because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and
had not been claimed to be a formal heresy.

Ah yes, that was when you accepted that Bruno was never charged with
heliocentrism but maintained that he was found guilty of it anyway,
lol.

Post by RonO
This changed after Bruno as
the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by
1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy. Even
the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about
Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that
Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.
Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and
continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.
The situation had not changed by 1633. It looks like the reason that
the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to
be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be
questioned. That seems stupid because that should have been out the
window a millennia ago. The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that,
but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout
the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy. The
appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong. Church
scholars were already worried about this issue before the official
appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened.
Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that
he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was
not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the
proceedings and rulings.
You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that
Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the
stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in
regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy. They define the heresy,
and they claim that Galileo is guilty.
The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong
about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism
being a formal heresy by 1616.

You still on about the site that site that says "that Copernicanism
had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most
persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"?

BTW, leaving aside the rather significant fact that the site actually
contradicts you, what is so special about its author David Palm; what
qualifications does he have that you consider his opinions so
important?

Post by RonO
This source claims that the 1616
Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that
seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was
found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the
Inquisition.
The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy. Your site,
Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this. Bruno faced
this heresy charge, but it wasn't a "formal" heresy at that time. It
had not yet been specifically claimed to be against church doctrine. By
the time that Galileo faced the charge in 1616 it is admitted that it
had been made into a formal heresy, and that Copernican writings had
been banned in 1616 as being heretical. This had not changed by 1633,
but the claim is that that 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 judgement
against Galileo even though the alternate charge that Galileo is
supposed to have been guilty of is breaking his oath to the 1616
Inquisition. The Galileo stupidity seems to be special pleading
nonsense that isn't even self consistent. If the 1616 judgement had not
been adopted why would Galileo have been found guilty of breaking his
oath? Why would the 1616 oath be important if it was forced onto him
unjustly? Why would Galileo have had to deny any support for the
heliocentric heresy, and promise not to do any such thing for the rest
of his life? How can his sentencing be misinterpreted? He is charged
with heresy, the heresy is defined, and he is claimed to be guilty of
supporting that heresy. The Anti-geocentrism site just claims that it
is not called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing, but that site admits
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He likely faced the
death in 1633, but that needs to be denied in order to protect the
Pope's actions. It sounds like other charges came to dominate because
they did not want to kill Galileo. They just wanted him to stop
supporting the heliocentric heresy, and they made him swear not to do it
anymore.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza.

That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
controversy".
That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
skills in your excellent scientific posts so it has to be your
beliefs about this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
don't let you absorb anything contradictory.

You are getting as bad as Nyikos. You can't just snip and run from what
you can't deal with. Just look at how you have been manipulating my
posts without marking your Snips.

You are likely quote mining the site. They clearly indicate that it was
a heresy in 1616, and continue to call it a heresy in 1633. Just deal
with what you have removed from my post. Those quotes came directly
from your site. They indicate that it was considered to be a heresy
since the 1541 Council of Trent, so Bruno would have faced that heresy,
but according to the other sites it was not made into a formal heresy by
the inquisition until around the time that Galileo faced the charge in
1615. All the sources agree that it was deemed heretical and Copernican
writings were banned by the 1616 Index.

The anti-Salza catholic site that you keep snipping out even admits that
the Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy by 1616. They just
claim that that 1616 judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court. That
1633 court claims Galileo was being charged with heresy, they define the
heresy, and they claim that Galileo was guilty. The anti-Salza site
only claims that they never called it a "formal" heresy as it had been
called in 1616.

Just go back up to the posts where you have been snipping everything out.

Where everyone might agree is that the Pope had nothing to do with the
1616 claims of formal heresy, but the Pope doesn't seem to be required
to call something a formal heresy. The anti-neogeocentris (against guys
like Salza) just want heliocentrism to not have been declared a formal
heresy in 1633. They want to protect the Pope's infallibility due to
his involvement in the case and judgement. They want to claim that the
1616 inquisition judgement against Galileo was not "adopted" by the 1633
court, but only "cited" by the court. They claim that it was never
designated a "formal" heresy by the 1633 court, and that the court only
refers to it as heresy. The stupid thing is that in order to protect
Papal infallibility they have to claim that the 1633 court judgement has
been misinterpreted. This claim of misinterpreting the sentencing of
Galileo has been going on for centuries because they do not want the
Pope to be wrong about heliocentrism. The claim is that Galileo was not
found guilty of the heresy as the sentencing claims, but that he was
actually found guilty about breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This reinterpretation seems to directly conflict with the claim that the
court never "adopted" the 1616 judgement about formal heresy. Why would
Galileo be guilty of breaking his oath (he would have committed heresy
in order to break that oath) if what he was swearing not to do was
inconsequential?

In order to continue this papal infallibility claim they have to claim
that when the Pope had the case and judgement disseminated throughout
the church that it was not an official act. They admit that he did it
because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy that was spreading in
the church, but that it did not have the signature of papal
infallibility. I guess everything that the pope does is not considered
to be infallible.

You can't just manipulate my post and run from reality. Just go back up
to the unmanipulated posts and deal with them.

The evidence (even your evidence) indicates that heliocentrism became a
heresy with the Council of Trent findings in 1541. Bruno would have
faced this heresy charge. Your source continues to call it a heresy in
1616 and 1633, but they do not make the distinction between a "formal"
heresy and just a heresy. Both the Salza site and the
anti-neogeocentric site agree that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, and that Copernican writings
were banned by the 1616 Index as being heretical.

Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1633, but the anti-neogeocentrists
just claim that it is never claimed to be a "formal" heresy in the
sentencing. They claim that the 1616 inquisition findings were not
"adopted" and only "cited" by the 1633 court. They claim that the
sentencing has been misinterpreted when there likely is no
misinterpretation, and that the alternate charge that Galileo actually
was found guilty of was violating his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This seems to indicate that the sentencing was about a formal heresy
charge even though it is not directly stated as such. In order for
Galileo to violate his oath he would have been guilty of the 1616 heresy
charge. He swore not to be a heretic.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza. They
are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced
in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only
cited in 1633. This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that
Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he
gave in that 1616 incident. If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616
findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning
the charge of heresy?
You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in
order to get all the links and previous quotes.
The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that
Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is
guilty. The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very
wrong. Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong
about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge by the Inquisition in 1616.
They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in
2020. The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541.

No it didn't mention anything at all about heliocentrism; what you
have is Salza quoting the decree correctly (contradictory to what you
previously claimed) and then trying to stretch it to *indirectly*
include heliocentrism. All explained to you above but you choose to
just keep ignoring it.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with. It was not a
formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably
because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and
had not been claimed to be a formal heresy.

Ah yes, that was when you accepted that Bruno was never charged with
heliocentrism but maintained that he was found guilty of it anyway,
lol.

Post by RonO
This changed after Bruno as
the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by
1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy. Even
the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about
Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that
Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.
Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and
continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.
The situation had not changed by 1633. It looks like the reason that
the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to
be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be
questioned. That seems stupid because that should have been out the
window a millennia ago. The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that,
but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout
the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy. The
appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong. Church
scholars were already worried about this issue before the official
appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened.
Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that
he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was
not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the
proceedings and rulings.
You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that
Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the
stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in
regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy. They define the heresy,
and they claim that Galileo is guilty.
The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong
about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism
being a formal heresy by 1616.

You still on about the site that site that says "that Copernicanism
had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most
persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"?
BTW, leaving aside the rather significant fact that the site actually
contradicts you, what is so special about its author David Palm; what
qualifications does he have that you consider his opinions so
important?

Post by RonO
This source claims that the 1616
Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that
seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was
found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the
Inquisition.
The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy. Your site,
Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this. Bruno faced
this heresy charge, but it wasn't a "formal" heresy at that time. It
had not yet been specifically claimed to be against church doctrine. By
the time that Galileo faced the charge in 1616 it is admitted that it
had been made into a formal heresy, and that Copernican writings had
been banned in 1616 as being heretical. This had not changed by 1633,
but the claim is that that 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 judgement
against Galileo even though the alternate charge that Galileo is
supposed to have been guilty of is breaking his oath to the 1616
Inquisition. The Galileo stupidity seems to be special pleading
nonsense that isn't even self consistent. If the 1616 judgement had not
been adopted why would Galileo have been found guilty of breaking his
oath? Why would the 1616 oath be important if it was forced onto him
unjustly? Why would Galileo have had to deny any support for the
heliocentric heresy, and promise not to do any such thing for the rest
of his life? How can his sentencing be misinterpreted? He is charged
with heresy, the heresy is defined, and he is claimed to be guilty of
supporting that heresy. The Anti-geocentrism site just claims that it
is not called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing, but that site admits
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He likely faced the
death in 1633, but that needs to be denied in order to protect the
Pope's actions. It sounds like other charges came to dominate because
they did not want to kill Galileo. They just wanted him to stop
supporting the heliocentric heresy, and they made him swear not to do it
anymore.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza.

That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
controversy".
That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
skills in your excellent scientific posts so it has to be your
beliefs about this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
don't let you absorb anything contradictory.

You are getting as bad as Nyikos. You can't just snip and run from what
you can't deal with. Just look at how you have been manipulating my
posts without marking your Snips.
You are likely quote mining the site. They clearly indicate that it was
a heresy in 1616, and continue to call it a heresy in 1633.

No quote mining at all. Here is the full opening paragraph

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>

Post by RonO
Just deal
with what you have removed from my post. Those quotes came directly
from your site. They indicate that it was considered to be a heresy
since the 1541 Council of Trent, so Bruno would have faced that heresy,
but according to the other sites it was not made into a formal heresy by
the inquisition until around the time that Galileo faced the charge in
1615. All the sources agree that it was deemed heretical and Copernican
writings were banned by the 1616 Index.
The anti-Salza catholic site that you keep snipping out even admits that
the Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy by 1616. They just
claim that that 1616 judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court. That
1633 court claims Galileo was being charged with heresy, they define the
heresy, and they claim that Galileo was guilty. The anti-Salza site
only claims that they never called it a "formal" heresy as it had been
called in 1616.
Just go back up to the posts where you have been snipping everything out.
Where everyone might agree is that the Pope had nothing to do with the
1616 claims of formal heresy, but the Pope doesn't seem to be required
to call something a formal heresy.

I really, really wish you would stop showing how little you know about
the Catholic Church and heresy but don't let it stop you making daft
claims about it. There is nothing nice about watching somebody as
generally respected as you are making such an idiot of himself :(

From the site you claim to support you, referring to the 1633 sentence
that you keep regurgitating, claiming it to confirm heresy:

<quote>
And noted authority on the history of science, Dr. John Heilbron,
observed:

The sentence against Galileo does not state explicitly that belief in
the sun-centered universe is a heresy. The Holy Office judge
Copernicanism to be "contrary to Scripture," which is not ipso facto
heretical in the sense of contrary to faith; to proceed from "opposed
to the literal meaning of Scripture" to "heretical" required at a
minimum express approbation by a pope.
</quote>

Note that final bit aboout requiring *at a minimum* express
approbation by a pope (my emphasis added). Yet again, the site you
claim to support you actually contradicts you.

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentris (against guys
like Salza) just want heliocentrism to not have been declared a formal
heresy in 1633. They want to protect the Pope's infallibility due to
his involvement in the case and judgement. They want to claim that the
1616 inquisition judgement against Galileo was not "adopted" by the 1633
court, but only "cited" by the court. They claim that it was never
designated a "formal" heresy by the 1633 court, and that the court only
refers to it as heresy. The stupid thing is that in order to protect
Papal infallibility they have to claim that the 1633 court judgement has
been misinterpreted. This claim of misinterpreting the sentencing of
Galileo has been going on for centuries because they do not want the
Pope to be wrong about heliocentrism. The claim is that Galileo was not
found guilty of the heresy as the sentencing claims, but that he was
actually found guilty about breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This reinterpretation seems to directly conflict with the claim that the
court never "adopted" the 1616 judgement about formal heresy. Why would
Galileo be guilty of breaking his oath (he would have committed heresy
in order to break that oath) if what he was swearing not to do was
inconsequential?
In order to continue this papal infallibility claim they have to claim
that when the Pope had the case and judgement disseminated throughout
the church that it was not an official act. They admit that he did it
because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy that was spreading in
the church, but that it did not have the signature of papal
infallibility. I guess everything that the pope does is not considered
to be infallible.
You can't just manipulate my post and run from reality. Just go back up
to the unmanipulated posts and deal with them.
The evidence (even your evidence) indicates that heliocentrism became a
heresy with the Council of Trent findings in 1541. Bruno would have
faced this heresy charge. Your source continues to call it a heresy in
1616 and 1633, but they do not make the distinction between a "formal"
heresy and just a heresy. Both the Salza site and the
anti-neogeocentric site agree that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, and that Copernican writings
were banned by the 1616 Index as being heretical.
Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1633, but the anti-neogeocentrists
just claim that it is never claimed to be a "formal" heresy in the
sentencing. They claim that the 1616 inquisition findings were not
"adopted" and only "cited" by the 1633 court. They claim that the
sentencing has been misinterpreted when there likely is no
misinterpretation, and that the alternate charge that Galileo actually
was found guilty of was violating his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This seems to indicate that the sentencing was about a formal heresy
charge even though it is not directly stated as such. In order for
Galileo to violate his oath he would have been guilty of the 1616 heresy
charge. He swore not to be a heretic.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza. They
are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced
in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only
cited in 1633. This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that
Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he
gave in that 1616 incident. If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616
findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning
the charge of heresy?
You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in
order to get all the links and previous quotes.
The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that
Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is
guilty. The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very
wrong. Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong
about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge by the Inquisition in 1616.
They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in
2020. The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541.

No it didn't mention anything at all about heliocentrism; what you
have is Salza quoting the decree correctly (contradictory to what you
previously claimed) and then trying to stretch it to *indirectly*
include heliocentrism. All explained to you above but you choose to
just keep ignoring it.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with. It was not a
formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably
because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and
had not been claimed to be a formal heresy.

Ah yes, that was when you accepted that Bruno was never charged with
heliocentrism but maintained that he was found guilty of it anyway,
lol.

Post by RonO
This changed after Bruno as
the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by
1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy. Even
the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about
Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that
Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.
Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and
continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.
The situation had not changed by 1633. It looks like the reason that
the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to
be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be
questioned. That seems stupid because that should have been out the
window a millennia ago. The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that,
but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout
the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy. The
appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong. Church
scholars were already worried about this issue before the official
appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened.
Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that
he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was
not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the
proceedings and rulings.
You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that
Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the
stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in
regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy. They define the heresy,
and they claim that Galileo is guilty.
The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong
about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism
being a formal heresy by 1616.

You still on about the site that site that says "that Copernicanism
had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most
persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"?
BTW, leaving aside the rather significant fact that the site actually
contradicts you, what is so special about its author David Palm; what
qualifications does he have that you consider his opinions so
important?

No response to this? No explanation why you think it's ok to ignore
recognised historians and go instead with a geocentrist and an author
whose qualifications you don't even know?

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This source claims that the 1616
Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that
seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was
found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the
Inquisition.
The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy. Your site,
Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this. Bruno faced
this heresy charge, but it wasn't a "formal" heresy at that time. It
had not yet been specifically claimed to be against church doctrine. By
the time that Galileo faced the charge in 1616 it is admitted that it
had been made into a formal heresy, and that Copernican writings had
been banned in 1616 as being heretical. This had not changed by 1633,
but the claim is that that 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 judgement
against Galileo even though the alternate charge that Galileo is
supposed to have been guilty of is breaking his oath to the 1616
Inquisition. The Galileo stupidity seems to be special pleading
nonsense that isn't even self consistent. If the 1616 judgement had not
been adopted why would Galileo have been found guilty of breaking his
oath? Why would the 1616 oath be important if it was forced onto him
unjustly? Why would Galileo have had to deny any support for the
heliocentric heresy, and promise not to do any such thing for the rest
of his life? How can his sentencing be misinterpreted? He is charged
with heresy, the heresy is defined, and he is claimed to be guilty of
supporting that heresy. The Anti-geocentrism site just claims that it
is not called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing, but that site admits
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He likely faced the
death in 1633, but that needs to be denied in order to protect the
Pope's actions. It sounds like other charges came to dominate because
they did not want to kill Galileo. They just wanted him to stop
supporting the heliocentric heresy, and they made him swear not to do it
anymore.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.
Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
trumped-up charge as I described it.
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

You just snipped it all out and ran. What I put up supported the source
that is claimed to be Salza.

That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
controversy".
That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
skills in your excellent scientific posts so it has to be your
beliefs about this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
don't let you absorb anything contradictory.

You are getting as bad as Nyikos. You can't just snip and run from what
you can't deal with. Just look at how you have been manipulating my
posts without marking your Snips.
You are likely quote mining the site. They clearly indicate that it was
a heresy in 1616, and continue to call it a heresy in 1633.

No quote mining at all. Here is the full opening paragraph
<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>

My computer processor fan failed and it has taken this long to get it fixed.

You are quote mining the site. These quotes came from your source. As
I noted they do not make the distinction between a formal heresy and
heresy, but definitely claim that it was a heresy. Above they are
trying to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy. This
is in agreement with the anti catholic neogencentric site. They also
claim that it was not a formal heresy in that the word formal never
occurred in the sentencing, but Galileo was charged with heresy, the
heresy was defined, and he was found guilty. It was just that the word
"formal" was never in front of "heresy" in that sentencing. The anti
neogeocentric site did admit that Galileo did face a formal heresy
charge in 1616, but they claim that the 1616 judgement was not adopted
by the 1633 inquisition. The "common error" of the quote above is a
reinterpretation of the sentencing so that papal infallibility can be
maintained.

REPOST of the full quote of the sentencing that you snipped out before:

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:

You can see how stupid your historians reinterpretation of the
sentencing is. He is correct that it was never called a formal heresy,
but that doesn't seem to matter. It was obviously a heresy and Galileo
was found guilty of it. He is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is claimed to be guilty and what he needs to do
in order to amend for being a heretic is stated.

It doesn't take a genius to determine from what your source and the
other sources agree on (it was a heresy charge that Galileo faced).
Even the anti neogeocentric site admits that it was a formal heresy that
Galileo faced in 1616.

Your trusted source calls it a heresy.

REPOST of REPOST:
REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.

QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:

Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:

It looks like your source has changed it's tune, but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.
END REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST:

All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy. This is what Bruno faced in 1600. Apparently it was not
considered to be a "formal Heresy" by the inquisition until Galileo
faced the charge in the 1616 judgement. The geocentric wiki, the anti
neogeocentric catholic site and the presumed Salza site agree that it
was a formal heresy by 1616. Your trusted site does not make the
distinction between a heresy and formal heresy in the quotes I put up
above, but clearly call it a heresy. Your new quote about the supposed
misinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair wants to make a big deal
about it not being called a "formal heresy" in the sentencing. It should
be noted that this reinterpretation of the 1633 affair was only made
long after 1633 when heliocentrism could not be anything worth charging
anyone with. Newton was born the year Galileo died under house arrest
and after Newton there was a major issue about geocentrism for the
Catholic church. It looks like the 1995 apology was warranted, and that
papal infallibility shouldn't enter into the rejection of reality.

The full sentence was quoted above, and it clearly charges Galileo with
heresy, defines the heresy, and finds Galileo guilty and states what
Galileo needs to do in order to make amends. The "reinterpretation" of
the Galileo affair seems to be a tragically dishonest reinterpretation
since the charge that they claim that Galileo actually faced was
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, and he had been charged with
formal heresy in 1616. He had to swear an oath that he would not
support nor indulge in that heresy, and that he had never supported that
heresy. Breaking that oath would mean that he had committed formal heresy.

You should stop trying to rewrite history. Even the rewrite doesn't do
you much good.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Just deal
with what you have removed from my post. Those quotes came directly
from your site. They indicate that it was considered to be a heresy
since the 1541 Council of Trent, so Bruno would have faced that heresy,
but according to the other sites it was not made into a formal heresy by
the inquisition until around the time that Galileo faced the charge in
1615. All the sources agree that it was deemed heretical and Copernican
writings were banned by the 1616 Index.
The anti-Salza catholic site that you keep snipping out even admits that
the Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy by 1616. They just
claim that that 1616 judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court. That
1633 court claims Galileo was being charged with heresy, they define the
heresy, and they claim that Galileo was guilty. The anti-Salza site
only claims that they never called it a "formal" heresy as it had been
called in 1616.
Just go back up to the posts where you have been snipping everything out.
Where everyone might agree is that the Pope had nothing to do with the
1616 claims of formal heresy, but the Pope doesn't seem to be required
to call something a formal heresy.

I really, really wish you would stop showing how little you know about
the Catholic Church and heresy but don't let it stop you making daft
claims about it. There is nothing nice about watching somebody as
generally respected as you are making such an idiot of himself :(
From the site you claim to support you, referring to the 1633 sentence
<quote>
And noted authority on the history of science, Dr. John Heilbron,
The sentence against Galileo does not state explicitly that belief in
the sun-centered universe is a heresy. The Holy Office judge
Copernicanism to be "contrary to Scripture," which is not ipso facto
heretical in the sense of contrary to faith; to proceed from "opposed
to the literal meaning of Scripture" to "heretical" required at a
minimum express approbation by a pope.
</quote>
Note that final bit aboout requiring *at a minimum* express
approbation by a pope (my emphasis added). Yet again, the site you
claim to support you actually contradicts you.

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentris (against guys
like Salza) just want heliocentrism to not have been declared a formal
heresy in 1633. They want to protect the Pope's infallibility due to
his involvement in the case and judgement. They want to claim that the
1616 inquisition judgement against Galileo was not "adopted" by the 1633
court, but only "cited" by the court. They claim that it was never
designated a "formal" heresy by the 1633 court, and that the court only
refers to it as heresy. The stupid thing is that in order to protect
Papal infallibility they have to claim that the 1633 court judgement has
been misinterpreted. This claim of misinterpreting the sentencing of
Galileo has been going on for centuries because they do not want the
Pope to be wrong about heliocentrism. The claim is that Galileo was not
found guilty of the heresy as the sentencing claims, but that he was
actually found guilty about breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This reinterpretation seems to directly conflict with the claim that the
court never "adopted" the 1616 judgement about formal heresy. Why would
Galileo be guilty of breaking his oath (he would have committed heresy
in order to break that oath) if what he was swearing not to do was
inconsequential?
In order to continue this papal infallibility claim they have to claim
that when the Pope had the case and judgement disseminated throughout
the church that it was not an official act. They admit that he did it
because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy that was spreading in
the church, but that it did not have the signature of papal
infallibility. I guess everything that the pope does is not considered
to be infallible.
You can't just manipulate my post and run from reality. Just go back up
to the unmanipulated posts and deal with them.
The evidence (even your evidence) indicates that heliocentrism became a
heresy with the Council of Trent findings in 1541. Bruno would have
faced this heresy charge. Your source continues to call it a heresy in
1616 and 1633, but they do not make the distinction between a "formal"
heresy and just a heresy. Both the Salza site and the
anti-neogeocentric site agree that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, and that Copernican writings
were banned by the 1616 Index as being heretical.
Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1633, but the anti-neogeocentrists
just claim that it is never claimed to be a "formal" heresy in the
sentencing. They claim that the 1616 inquisition findings were not
"adopted" and only "cited" by the 1633 court. They claim that the
sentencing has been misinterpreted when there likely is no
misinterpretation, and that the alternate charge that Galileo actually
was found guilty of was violating his oath to the 1616 inquisition.
This seems to indicate that the sentencing was about a formal heresy
charge even though it is not directly stated as such. In order for
Galileo to violate his oath he would have been guilty of the 1616 heresy
charge. He swore not to be a heretic.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your own source that you put up to
Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza.
The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza. They
are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced
in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only
cited in 1633. This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that
Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he
gave in that 1616 incident. If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616
findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning
the charge of heresy?
You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in
order to get all the links and previous quotes.
The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that
Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is
guilty. The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very
wrong. Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong
about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge by the Inquisition in 1616.
They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in
2020. The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541.

No it didn't mention anything at all about heliocentrism; what you
have is Salza quoting the decree correctly (contradictory to what you
previously claimed) and then trying to stretch it to *indirectly*
include heliocentrism. All explained to you above but you choose to
just keep ignoring it.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with. It was not a
formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably
because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and
had not been claimed to be a formal heresy.

Ah yes, that was when you accepted that Bruno was never charged with
heliocentrism but maintained that he was found guilty of it anyway,
lol.

Post by RonO
This changed after Bruno as
the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by
1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy. Even
the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about
Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that
Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.
Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and
continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.
The situation had not changed by 1633. It looks like the reason that
the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to
be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be
questioned. That seems stupid because that should have been out the
window a millennia ago. The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that,
but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout
the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy. The
appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong. Church
scholars were already worried about this issue before the official
appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened.
Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that
he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was
not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the
proceedings and rulings.
You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that
Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the
stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in
regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy. They define the heresy,
and they claim that Galileo is guilty.
The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong
about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism
being a formal heresy by 1616.

You still on about the site that site that says "that Copernicanism
had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most
persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"?
BTW, leaving aside the rather significant fact that the site actually
contradicts you, what is so special about its author David Palm; what
qualifications does he have that you consider his opinions so
important?

No response to this? No explanation why you think it's ok to ignore
recognised historians and go instead with a geocentrist and an author
whose qualifications you don't even know?

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This source claims that the 1616
Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that
seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was
found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the
Inquisition.
The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy. Your site,
Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this. Bruno faced
this heresy charge, but it wasn't a "formal" heresy at that time. It
had not yet been specifically claimed to be against church doctrine. By
the time that Galileo faced the charge in 1616 it is admitted that it
had been made into a formal heresy, and that Copernican writings had
been banned in 1616 as being heretical. This had not changed by 1633,
but the claim is that that 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 judgement
against Galileo even though the alternate charge that Galileo is
supposed to have been guilty of is breaking his oath to the 1616
Inquisition. The Galileo stupidity seems to be special pleading
nonsense that isn't even self consistent. If the 1616 judgement had not
been adopted why would Galileo have been found guilty of breaking his
oath? Why would the 1616 oath be important if it was forced onto him
unjustly? Why would Galileo have had to deny any support for the
heliocentric heresy, and promise not to do any such thing for the rest
of his life? How can his sentencing be misinterpreted? He is charged
with heresy, the heresy is defined, and he is claimed to be guilty of
supporting that heresy. The Anti-geocentrism site just claims that it
is not called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing, but that site admits
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He likely faced the
death in 1633, but that needs to be denied in order to protect the
Pope's actions. It sounds like other charges came to dominate because
they did not want to kill Galileo. They just wanted him to stop
supporting the heliocentric heresy, and they made him swear not to do it
anymore.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.

You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.

You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory

You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist. You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do. Everything that you snipped out can
be verified. One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong. Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy. The
other two sources did. Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633. The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing. Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.

The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633. The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility. They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair. The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.

Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.

All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy. This is what Bruno faced. Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court. The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy". That is the reality of the situation.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist. You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do.

Hard to remove evidence when the evidence doesn't exist ... unless you
seriously want to consider as evidence the personal opinion of a guy
trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Post by RonO
Everything that you snipped out can
be verified. One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong. Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy.

How many times do you have to be told that there is no such thing as a
"formal" heresy?

Post by RonO
The
other two sources did. Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633.

None of my sources say it was a heresy. They say that Galileo was
*charged* with heresy but it was a trumped-up charge. Apparently you
have trouble understanding that.

Post by RonO
The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing. Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.
The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633. The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility. They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair. The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.
Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.
All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy.

No it didn't. There is no reference to heliocentrism anywhere in the
Trent documents.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced.

Have you got tired of arguing about Galileo? Do you really want to go
back to Bruno where Burkhard handed you your ass the last time you
tried it?

Post by RonO
Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court. The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy". That is the reality of the situation.

No - that's because there is no such thing as a "formal" heresy.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist. You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do.

Hard to remove evidence when the evidence doesn't exist ... unless you
seriously want to consider as evidence the personal opinion of a guy
trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Why lie about something like this? You snipped it all out multiple
times from multiple posts. How many times have you snipped out the
reposted material from your own source that counters what you have been
claiming?

This is obviously not anything worth lying about. You are just wrong.
Not only wrong, but you seem to be as mentally out of it as Nyikos was
when he had to lie about something stupid.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Everything that you snipped out can
be verified. One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong. Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy.

How many times do you have to be told that there is no such thing as a
"formal" heresy?

Post by RonO
The
other two sources did. Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633.

None of my sources say it was a heresy. They say that Galileo was
*charged* with heresy but it was a trumped-up charge. Apparently you
have trouble understanding that.

Post by RonO
The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing. Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.
The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633. The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility. They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair. The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.
Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.
All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy.

No it didn't. There is no reference to heliocentrism anywhere in the
Trent documents.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced.

Have you got tired of arguing about Galileo? Do you really want to go
back to Bruno where Burkhard handed you your ass the last time you
tried it?

Post by RonO
Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court. The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy". That is the reality of the situation.

No - that's because there is no such thing as a "formal" heresy.

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist. You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do.

Hard to remove evidence when the evidence doesn't exist ... unless you
seriously want to consider as evidence the personal opinion of a guy
trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Why lie about something like this?

Sorry Ron, but you are the one who has been lying. Just a few
examples:

You said that heliocentrism was a minor heresy or not a formal thing;
there is no such thing as either of those.

You said the New Advent site had been altered; it hadn't.

You said my sources stated that heliocentrism was a heresy; they
don't, they state the exact opposite.

You said that heliocentrism was declared a heresy by the Council of
Trent; it isn't even mentioned in the Council records.

Any of those are easy mistakes; what makes them lies is when you have
been corrected multiple times and still persist with them.

Post by RonO
You snipped it all out multiple
times from multiple posts. How many times have you snipped out the
reposted material from your own source that counters what you have been
claiming?
This is obviously not anything worth lying about. You are just wrong.
Not only wrong, but you seem to be as mentally out of it as Nyikos was
when he had to lie about something stupid.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Everything that you snipped out can
be verified. One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong. Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy.

How many times do you have to be told that there is no such thing as a
"formal" heresy?

Post by RonO
The
other two sources did. Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633.

None of my sources say it was a heresy. They say that Galileo was
*charged* with heresy but it was a trumped-up charge. Apparently you
have trouble understanding that.

Post by RonO
The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing. Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.
The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633. The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility. They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair. The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.
Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.
All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy.

No it didn't. There is no reference to heliocentrism anywhere in the
Trent documents.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced.

Have you got tired of arguing about Galileo? Do you really want to go
back to Bruno where Burkhard handed you your ass the last time you
tried it?

Post by RonO
Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court. The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy". That is the reality of the situation.

No - that's because there is no such thing as a "formal" heresy.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!

Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist. You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do.

Hard to remove evidence when the evidence doesn't exist ... unless you
seriously want to consider as evidence the personal opinion of a guy
trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Why lie about something like this?

Sorry Ron, but you are the one who has been lying. Just a few
You said that heliocentrism was a minor heresy or not a formal thing;
there is no such thing as either of those.

Your source agrees. It doesn't make the distinction between heresy and
"formal heresy" that the other two sources make, but it does call
heliocentrism a heresy. The other two sites make the distinction
between a heresy and "formal heresy". Your recent quote made the
distinction claiming that Galileo was not charged with a "formal
heresy". There are obviously two types of heresy that were issues.

You are the liar about snipping out the evidence. It came from your
trusted source.

Post by Martin Harran
You said the New Advent site had been altered; it hadn't.

It wasn't what I recall it being, and didn't have some of the citations
that I recalled. I did not know that it was the same site until you
posted the old post.

Post by Martin Harran
You said my sources stated that heliocentrism was a heresy; they
don't, they state the exact opposite.

You snipped out the direct quotes from your reference claiming that it
was a heresy that Galileo faced in 1616 and 1633. Just removing the
evidence doesn't mean that you can lie about it.

Even your recent quote just claimed that it was not called a "formal
heresy" in the sentencing. I quoted the entire sentencing, and the word
"formal" is missing, but they charged Galileo with heresy, they defined
the heresy, and they found him guilty. The word "formal" was just not
placed in front of heresy.

Post by Martin Harran
You said that heliocentrism was declared a heresy by the Council of
Trent; it isn't even mentioned in the Council records.

No one claims that the Council of Trent declared heliocentrism to be a
heresy. All the sources just admit that they made it into a heresy
because of the issue with questioning the beliefs of the church fathers,
and all of the church fathers were geocentrists. Both the
anti-neogeocentrist site and the presumed Salza site agree that it was a
heresy after the Council of Trent and so does your trusted source. Your
source obviously calls it a heresy. Even your recent quote only claims
that it was not a "formal heresy" in 1633. The Salza site disagrees.
There has been a reinterpretation of the Galileo 1633 affair that
occurred long after the trial. The reinterpretation wasn't needed until
geocentrism became something that could no longer be defended. Both
sites that make a distinction between a formal heresy and heresy claim
that it was a formal heresy charge in 1615 and in the 1616 judgement
against Galileo. There is disagreement about it being a formal heresy
in 1633, but the guys claiming that it wasn't a formal heresy seem to be
the ones that are wrong. Their excuse is pretty slim, and the
alternative charge that they claim that Galileo faced is stupid denial
because they claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking
his oath to the 1616 inquisition. This just means that Galileo was
found guilty of formal heresy because he would have had to commit formal
heresy of the 1616 inquisition in order to be guilty of breaking his oath.

You seem to have sanity issues. Lying about reality will not change
reality. Even your own reference doesn't back you up.

There are obviously two types of heresy involved in this issue. Formal
heresy apparently carries the death penalty and is the worst type of
heresy. There is just heresy that doesn't seem to carry the weight of
"formal heresy". Your trusted reference doesn't make a distinction
between the two types, and just claims heliocentrism to have been a
heresy in 1616 and 1633. Your recent quote makes the distinction and
claims that it wasn't a formal heresy in the 1633 court case, but it was
obviously called a heresy in the sentencing where Galileo was charged
with heresy, the heresy was defined, and he was found guilty of heresy.

Removing the evidence and lying about reality doesn't change reality.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran
Any of those are easy mistakes; what makes them lies is when you have
been corrected multiple times and still persist with them.

Post by RonO
You snipped it all out multiple
times from multiple posts. How many times have you snipped out the
reposted material from your own source that counters what you have been
claiming?
This is obviously not anything worth lying about. You are just wrong.
Not only wrong, but you seem to be as mentally out of it as Nyikos was
when he had to lie about something stupid.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Everything that you snipped out can
be verified. One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong. Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy.

How many times do you have to be told that there is no such thing as a
"formal" heresy?

Post by RonO
The
other two sources did. Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633.

None of my sources say it was a heresy. They say that Galileo was
*charged* with heresy but it was a trumped-up charge. Apparently you
have trouble understanding that.

Post by RonO
The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing. Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.
The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633. The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility. They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair. The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.
Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.
All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy.

No it didn't. There is no reference to heliocentrism anywhere in the
Trent documents.

Post by RonO
This is what Bruno faced.

Have you got tired of arguing about Galileo? Do you really want to go
back to Bruno where Burkhard handed you your ass the last time you
tried it?

Post by RonO
Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court. The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy". That is the reality of the situation.

No - that's because there is no such thing as a "formal" heresy.

[Martin Harran]

<sigh>
Your thinking is so thoroughly screwed up that there is no point in
reposting the stuff you have above, most of which is just confused
repetition of what you have posted before. Instead, what I will try to
do is take you step-by-step, #101 style, through the various issues.

First of all, as I have repeatedly told you, there's no such thing as
a "formal heresy"; what happens is a *formal process* where
theologians are appointed to study an issue, they make a
recommendation and the Pope finally declares it as a heresy. This is
analogous to our modern legal procedures. For example, a murder is
committed and a suspect questioned; if enough evidence is found to
prosecute them, then the suspect is formally charged, a process known
as indictment, they then go through a formal trial; a jury considers
the evidence and reaches a verdict; a judge then formally declares the
verdict and the sentence. The various stages of that process are
*formal* but there is no such thing as a "formal murder", the word
formal applies only to the process.

A heresy cannot be declared without a formal declaration from the
Pope. To claim that it could be done without the Pope's approval would
be analogous to the judge absenting himself from a murder trial and
the jury on their own finding the suspect guilty and sending him to
jail or for execution; to suggest that it could just be "made" by what
was declared in Trent would be analogous to a person being found
guilty and sent to jail or for execution without a formal trial just
because the law says that murder is a crime.

Galileo actually went through two investigations. The first one was in
1616 and that was where the Qualifiers (the theologians appointed to
investigate it) studied the claims made about heliocentrism and they
declared " … this proposition (heliocentrism) is foolish and absurd in
philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in
many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal
meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and
understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." (XIX,
321; trans. by Finocchiaro 1989, 146).

There is a lot of argument among scholars about Finocchiaro's
translation of that statement into English from the original Latin but
it is more to do with the punctuation than the choice of words. That
is likely because none of the scholars think for one minute that the
statement somehow created a heresy, they are all familiar with the
necessity of a process leading to a formal declaration by the Pope. If
you want to read more about this, you can get it here:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/139212-2/

The authors themselves did not regard it as absolutely final and
irreversible. It was based on the problem of an *unproven* hypothesis
being used to say that scripture was wrong and Cardinal Bellarmine,
the most influential member of the Sacred College, stated that:

" I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated. "

That most important factor is the absence of a follow-on procedure and
declaration by the Pope; he never even signed the decree which meant
the decree, despite stating that heliocentrism was "formally
heretical", could not be regarded as a formal declaration of heresy.
The decree itself was stuck into a file and basically forgotten about
for 17 years until it was revived at Galileo's 1633 trial; during that
time, Galileo and others completely ignored it and continued to
investigate and openly promote heliocentrism which they could not have
done it was regarded as heresy.

The decree did get revived at the 1633 trial but as all the
researchers I have cited point out, the 1616 decree was a red herring
as heliocentrism had never been formally declared as a heresy. You
keep whining about me snipping out the stuff you keep posting from the
charge against Galileo and the sentence imposed upon them but nobody
is disputing the charges and the verdict of being guilty of heresy.
What is important is that they were based on the falsehood that
heliocentrism was a heresy; it wasn't. That is whey I describe it as a
trumped -up charge and a show trial; as Augustus De Morgan put it:

"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."

Those involved with the trial would have known this themselves and
that is likely why they went for the "Suspected of heresy" charge
rather than straightforward heresy; "suspected" heresy is basically
somebody doing something heretical without being aware that it was
heretical - an early example of weasel words being used.

For some reason, you seem to struggle to understand the point that
the charges against Galileo and the sentence passed had no valid
foundation. You seem to think in particular that when the researchers
I have cited quote the charge and the sentence, that they are somehow
validating the charge of heresy when they are only quoting them to
show that they are wrong. I don't know what else I can say to improve
your understanding.

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

[RonO]

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Projection was also used by Nyikos quite often. What does your own
trusted source tell you?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

[RonO]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand. Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 19:30:03 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at.

The mind boggles at how willfully you avoid following your own advice.

Post by Martin Harran
Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".

No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

Post by RonO
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

Post by RonO
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.

QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:

Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:

It looks like your source has changed it's tune, but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.
END REPOST:

I was quoting from your source. How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence? How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki. Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy". The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered. It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.

Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy". A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries. In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge. They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.

Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates. The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court. In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.

None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge. One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written. The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.

The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty. In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.

Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip for foicus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip for focus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

I will respond to some of the stuff above later but in the meantime,
have you even bothered to read the post I did yesterday explaining how
a "heresy without papal recognition" is abject nonsense?

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for foicus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

It is the anti-neogeocentric site that disagrees with the Salza site
that claims that it was a formal heresy without papal recognition. They
admitted that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but they claimed that the
pope had nothing to do with that, and they claimed that the 1616
judgement was never adopted by the 1633 court where the pope was
involved. It is probably the reason that your recent reference claimed
that the sentencing had never called it a "formal" heresy, and is
definitely why the anti-neogeocentric site wants it not to be a formal
heresy in the 1633 case.

Catholics do not want the pope to be involved in recognizing
heliocentrism as being a formal heresy because heliocentrism was
something that they do not want the pope to be wrong about. The
catholics that want to reinterpret the Galileo affair are worried about
papal infallibility. The anti-neogeocentric site admits that the pope
ordered the dissemination of the sentencing and proceedings through out
the church because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy, but they
claim those post trial doings were not official papal acts, and that the
pope was not trying to suppress a formal heresy. The special pleading
to protect the pope seems to be nonsense. Apparently if a heresy is not
a formal heresy it is open to some misinterpretation, and it would be OK
for the pope to be wrong about it. Even your recent source did not want
it to be a formal heresy in 1633. It obviously was a heresy. This is
not denied by your trusted source, nor the anti-neogeocentric source
that does not want it to be a formal heresy.

REPOST of the sentencing that you just snipped out:
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/

QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
END REPOST of sentencing:

Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is
found guilty. To be absolved he must abjure, curse, and detest his
errors and heresies, and that is exactly what Galileo did.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

I will respond to some of the stuff above later but in the meantime,
have you even bothered to read the post I did yesterday explaining how
a "heresy without papal recognition" is abject nonsense?

Who was projecting about running from the evidence. What did you just
do to this post. Calling it "snip for focus" is lying to yourself.

Your own trusted source calls it a heresy in both 1616 and 1633, but it
doesn't make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy
in the paragraphs that I quoted. The other sources did make the
distinction, and even your recent source made that distinction.

You are just wrong about it. Snipping and running isn't going to change
reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for foicus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

It is the anti-neogeocentric site that disagrees with the Salza site
that claims that it was a formal heresy without papal recognition. They
admitted that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but they claimed that the
pope had nothing to do with that, and they claimed that the 1616
judgement was never adopted by the 1633 court where the pope was
involved. It is probably the reason that your recent reference claimed
that the sentencing had never called it a "formal" heresy, and is
definitely why the anti-neogeocentric site wants it not to be a formal
heresy in the 1633 case.
Catholics do not want the pope to be involved in recognizing
heliocentrism as being a formal heresy because heliocentrism was
something that they do not want the pope to be wrong about. The
catholics that want to reinterpret the Galileo affair are worried about
papal infallibility. The anti-neogeocentric site admits that the pope
ordered the dissemination of the sentencing and proceedings through out
the church because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy, but they
claim those post trial doings were not official papal acts, and that the
pope was not trying to suppress a formal heresy. The special pleading
to protect the pope seems to be nonsense. Apparently if a heresy is not
a formal heresy it is open to some misinterpretation, and it would be OK
for the pope to be wrong about it. Even your recent source did not want
it to be a formal heresy in 1633. It obviously was a heresy. This is
not denied by your trusted source, nor the anti-neogeocentric source
that does not want it to be a formal heresy.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is
found guilty. To be absolved he must abjure, curse, and detest his
errors and heresies, and that is exactly what Galileo did.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by RonO
It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

I will respond to some of the stuff above later but in the meantime,
have you even bothered to read the post I did yesterday explaining how
a "heresy without papal recognition" is abject nonsense?

Who was projecting about running from the evidence. What did you just
do to this post. Calling it "snip for focus" is lying to yourself.
Your own trusted source calls it a heresy in both 1616 and 1633, but it
doesn't make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy
in the paragraphs that I quoted. The other sources did make the
distinction, and even your recent source made that distinction.
You are just wrong about it. Snipping and running isn't going to change
reality.
Ron Okimoto

All dealt with in my other post a few minutes ago as well as multiple
other posts. I can't be arsed with sub-threads going over the same
stupid arguments so from here, I will only be responding in that
sub-thread.

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence? How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
cites 1616 Report of the Theological Qualifiers which states:

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered. It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy". A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries. In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge. They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates. The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court. In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

Here is what my sources have to say:

The Catholic Church:
=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "

Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."

Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-


From *your* anti-geocentric site that you think supports you:

"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error. "

The same site quoting Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro [Retrying]:

"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"

Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written. The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty. In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Why keep lying about this? You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before. There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.

Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference. It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge. Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633. It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge. What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries. They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633. It is
admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had the
judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not a formal
heresy charge that Galileo faced. Like your recent reference it is only
written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never preceeds heresy.
They also claim that the pope's actions after the trial were not
official papal acts. They do not claim that the charges were trumped
up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of formal heresy. They claim
that the 1616 formal heresy charge against Galileo was never adopted by
the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may be they want to claim that the
sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found
guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, but in order to
break that oath, the 1633 would have had to accept the 1616 judgement
and Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy. There is no doubt
that breaking that oath would have meant that Galileo had committed
formal heresy because that oath was that Galileo had never committed
formal heresy, and that he would not commit formal heresy.

Removing the evidence doesn't change reality. Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before Galileo
faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it was added
to the index.

Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from "heresy"
in 1633. The quotes from your trusted source did not make the
distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but the
other sources did.

The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza) agree
that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident. The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633. That is where the sources disagree. It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy. The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.

All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope. They do
not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal heresy
charge. It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo affair that
is likely false.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts. It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.

Your trusted source does not support you.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

The above repost was quotes from your trusted source. You also snipped
out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the site that
disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that Galileo faced a
"formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want it to be a formal
heresy charge in 1633. The sentencing charges Galileo with heresy, the
heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty. The word "formal"
does not appear before heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence? How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that was
against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal appology in
1995 was wrong. They agree that Galileo faced heresy charges both
times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a formal heresy
charge in 1616.

You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633. Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not adopt
the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633. Your trusted
source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal heresy
for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

This is ridiculous:
REPOST of you using the quote from your trusted source:
<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>

This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal heresy.
The full quote is still below in this post. Galileo is charged with
heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty of heresy,
but the word "formal" never appears before the word "heresy". The
source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy. Just a heresy seems to be open to some
misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about
just a heresy. That source does admit that Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement was not
adopted by the 1633 court.

Post by Martin Harran
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been guilty
of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted that it
was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633. It was still a heresy in
1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the sentencing
and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the heresy, but
they did not want it to be a formal heresy. Their claim is that the
1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never adopted.

You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in 1616
and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal heresy and
heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered. It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy". A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti and
pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but
they do not claim papal involvement in that case. If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries. In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge. They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates. The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court. In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error. "
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge. It doesn't matter if
it should not have been a heresy. It had been believed to be a heresy
for a very long time before the 1633 case. Your trusted source and all
the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy after the
Council of Trent in 1541. Their finding about the church fathers and
their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted to mean that
things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all the church
fathers were geocentrists. Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent. It was determined to be a formal heresy by
1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric writings were placed in
the Index.

This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.

It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming back
in 1616 and 1633.

You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they had
to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing. In the
declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had to go to
to get them. The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine. The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce. What is needed is to get a list
of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and some
explanation for why they still existed after 1822.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written. The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty. In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

You are the one running in denial of the evidence. There is no
duplication of issues. Your claims are just false. Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make. Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.

It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases. A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy. Bruno
would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but they want
to waffle about it because they do not want the pope involved in a
formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type of heresy charge
that anyone wants to support today. Even the source that doesn't want
it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that the pope was dealing
with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that he had the sentencing
and court judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash
the heresy, but that, that was not an official papal act, and that
Galileo had not been charged with formal heresy. They want to protect
papal infallibility.

The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism. Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633. Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair? Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Why keep lying about this?  You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before.  There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.
Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference.  It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge.  Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633.  It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge.  What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633.  It is
admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had the
judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not a formal
heresy charge that Galileo faced.  Like your recent reference it is only
written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never preceeds heresy.
 They also claim that the pope's actions after the trial were not
official papal acts.  They do not claim that the charges were trumped
up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of formal heresy.  They claim
that the 1616 formal heresy charge against Galileo was never adopted by
the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may be they want to claim that the
sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found
guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, but in order to
break that oath, the 1633 would have had to accept the 1616 judgement
and Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy.  There is no doubt
that breaking that oath would have meant that Galileo had committed
formal heresy because that oath was that Galileo had never committed
formal heresy, and that he would not commit formal heresy.
Removing the evidence doesn't change reality.  Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about
Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before Galileo
faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it was added
to the index.
Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from "heresy"
in 1633.  The quotes from your trusted source did not make the
distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but the
other sources did.
The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza) agree
that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident.  The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633.  That is where the sources disagree.  It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy.  The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.
All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope.  They do
not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal heresy
charge.  It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo affair that
is likely false.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts.  It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.
Your trusted source does not support you.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

The above repost was quotes from your trusted source.  You also snipped
out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the site that
disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that Galileo faced a
"formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want it to be a formal
heresy charge in 1633.  The sentencing charges Galileo with heresy, the
heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  The word "formal"
does not appear before heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that was
against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal appology in
1995 was wrong.  They agree that Galileo faced heresy charges both
times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a formal heresy
charge in 1616.
You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633.  Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not adopt
the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633.  Your trusted
source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal heresy
for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>
This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal heresy.
 The full quote is still below in this post.  Galileo is charged with
heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty of heresy,
but the word "formal" never appears before the word "heresy".  The
source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy.  Just a heresy seems to be open to some
misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about
just a heresy.  That source does admit that Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement was not
adopted by the 1633 court.

Post by Martin Harran
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been guilty
of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted that it
was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633.  It was still a heresy in
1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the sentencing
and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the heresy, but
they did not want it to be a formal heresy.  Their claim is that the
1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never adopted.
You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in 1616
and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal heresy and
heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti and
pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but
they do not claim papal involvement in that case.  If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error. "
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge.  It doesn't matter if
it should not have been a heresy.  It had been believed to be a heresy
for a very long time before the 1633 case.  Your trusted source and all
the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy after the
Council of Trent in 1541.  Their finding about the church fathers and
their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted to mean that
things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all the church
fathers were geocentrists.  Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent.  It was determined to be a formal heresy by
1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric writings were placed in
the Index.
This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.
It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming back
in 1616 and 1633.
You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they had
to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing.  In the
declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had to go to
to get them.  The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine.  The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce.  What is needed is to get a list
of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and some
explanation for why they still existed after 1822.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

You are the one running in denial of the evidence.  There is no
duplication of issues.  Your claims are just false.  Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make.  Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.
It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases.  A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy.  Bruno
would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but they want
to waffle about it because they do not want the pope involved in a
formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type of heresy charge
that anyone wants to support today.  Even the source that doesn't want
it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that the pope was dealing
with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that he had the sentencing
and court judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash
the heresy, but that, that was not an official papal act, and that
Galileo had not been charged with formal heresy.  They want to protect
papal infallibility.
The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism.  Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633.  Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair?  Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.

[Martin Harran]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.

You're showing your age now when you regard 40kb of bandwidth as
excessive :)

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:52:30 +0000

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.

You're showing your age now when you regard 40kb of bandwidth as
excessive :)

True. But I find "Read Next, Pgdn" routine takes longer with all the
quoted stuff.

[RonO]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:52:30 +0000

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.

You're showing your age now when you regard 40kb of bandwidth as
excessive :)

True. But I find "Read Next, Pgdn" routine takes longer with all the
quoted stuff.

I stopped removing the material from a post to shorten it because of
Nyikos manipulating posts without attribution. You needed the intact
previous post open in another window just to figure out what Nyikos had
done to the post. Harran does the same snip and run routine, and what
is left in the posts are not enough to figure out what he is making
claims about, and reposting the material has been needed multiple times
in this thread.

I started reading TO back in 1993, and shortening the posts was a major
issue when some posters only had 300 baud modems, but that hasn't been
anything to worry about for decades. I would still shorten the posts
until Nyikos came back in 2010, and you needed all the parts of the post
in order to determine what Nyikos was manipulating. So I just got out
of the habit.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
[...]

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Your own trusted source does not agree with you. Your source may not be
scientists and historians, but you haven't put up any scientists or
historians that back you up. All the sources seem to agree that it was
some type of heresy by the time that Bruno faced the charge. The
Geocentric wiki and the two sources that disagree about the 1633 Galileo
affair both agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced
in 1616. Both those sources claim that it became a heresy due to the
Council of Trent and their claims about how the beliefs of the church
fathers affected church doctrine. No source claims that the Council of
Trent in 1541 claimed that heliocentrism was a heresy, but their stand
on the beliefs of the church fathers made conflicts with those beliefs
into heresies. Your trusted source agrees that it was a heresy. The
quotes that I put up from your source did not make a distinction between
a formal heresy and a non formal heresy, but the quote that you put up
did try to make that distinction for the 1633 case.

There do not seem to be any scientists nor historians that back you up.
You have not put up any such sources, and your "trusted" source
disagrees with you. It was you that snipped and ran from those quotes
and they came from your source. You still have not dealt with the fact
that your own source admits that Galileo faced heresy charges both in
1616 and 1633.

You could put up something from some source that backs you up, but you
have not done that. Even the recent quote you put up only wanted to
make a distinction between a formal heresy and the charge of heresy that
Galileo faced. The 1633 sentencing never called it a formal heresy.
They just charged Galileo with heresy, defined the heresy, found him
guilty and stated how Galileo could absolve himself by denouncing any
belief in those heresies.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.
You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.
You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Why keep lying about this?  You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before.  There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.
Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference.  It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge.  Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633.  It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge.  What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633.  It
is admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had
the judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in
order to quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not
a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced.  Like your recent reference
it is only written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never
preceeds heresy.   They also claim that the pope's actions after the
trial were not official papal acts.  They do not claim that the
charges were trumped up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of
formal heresy.  They claim that the 1616 formal heresy charge against
Galileo was never adopted by the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may
be they want to claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that
Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616
inquisition, but in order to break that oath, the 1633 would have had
to accept the 1616 judgement and Galileo would have been guilty of
formal heresy.  There is no doubt that breaking that oath would have
meant that Galileo had committed formal heresy because that oath was
that Galileo had never committed formal heresy, and that he would not
commit formal heresy.
Removing the evidence doesn't change reality.  Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about
Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before
Galileo faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it
was added to the index.
Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from
"heresy" in 1633.  The quotes from your trusted source did not make
the distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but
the other sources did.
The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza)
agree that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident.  The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633.  That is where the sources disagree.  It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy.  The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.
All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope.  They
do not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal
heresy charge.  It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo
affair that is likely false.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly
inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts.  It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.
Your trusted source does not support you.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

The above repost was quotes from your trusted source.  You also
snipped out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the
site that disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that
Galileo faced a "formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want
it to be a formal heresy charge in 1633.  The sentencing charges
Galileo with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found
guilty.  The word "formal" does not appear before heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that
was against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal
appology in 1995 was wrong.  They agree that Galileo faced heresy
charges both times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a
formal heresy charge in 1616.
You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633.  Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not
adopt the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633.  Your
trusted source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal
heresy for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>
This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal
heresy.   The full quote is still below in this post.  Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found
guilty of heresy, but the word "formal" never appears before the word
"heresy".  The source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope
to have been wrong about a formal heresy.  Just a heresy seems to be
open to some misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been
wrong about just a heresy.  That source does admit that Galileo faced
a formal heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement
was not adopted by the 1633 court.

Post by Martin Harran
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been
guilty of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted
that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633.  It was still a
heresy in 1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the
sentencing and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the
heresy, but they did not want it to be a formal heresy.  Their claim
is that the 1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never
adopted.
You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in
1616 and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal
heresy and heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti
and pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but they do not claim papal involvement in that case.  If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-
declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center

of the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy
Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error. "
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge.  It doesn't matter
if it should not have been a heresy.  It had been believed to be a
heresy for a very long time before the 1633 case.  Your trusted source
and all the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent in 1541.  Their finding about the church
fathers and their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted
to mean that things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all
the church fathers were geocentrists.  Heliocentrism was considered to
be a heresy after the Council of Trent.  It was determined to be a
formal heresy by 1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric
writings were placed in the Index.
This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.
It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming
back in 1616 and 1633.
You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they
had to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing.
In the declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had
to go to to get them.  The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine.  The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce.  What is needed is to get a
list of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and
some explanation for why they still existed after 1822.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

You are the one running in denial of the evidence.  There is no
duplication of issues.  Your claims are just false.  Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make.  Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.
It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases.  A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy.
Bruno would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but
they want to waffle about it because they do not want the pope
involved in a formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type
of heresy charge that anyone wants to support today.  Even the source
that doesn't want it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that
the pope was dealing with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that
he had the sentencing and court judgement distributed throughout the
church in order to quash the heresy, but that, that was not an
official papal act, and that Galileo had not been charged with formal
heresy.  They want to protect papal infallibility.
The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism.  Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633.  Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair?  Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-
declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center

of the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy
Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

To all concerned:  let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It doesn't matter in terms of what TO is supposed to be about, but
nothing else is being put up. Pagano was a geocentrist and disagreed
with Harran. Pags considered the papal appology in 1995 to be
unnecessary. So does the presumed Salza web site. Even the catholic
site that disagrees with Salza and Pagano does not back up Harrans
interpretation of history.

All this means to TO is that Biblical interpretations have changed over
time. There aren't many Christian geocentrists left that worry about
the issue, but there are some, and there are even flat earth Biblical
creationists. It is likely that none of the church fathers were flat
earthers. Augustine was likely having issues with flat earthers when he
wrote his admonishments about using the Bible to deny what people could
determine for themselves about nature. All the church fathers were
likely geocentrists, and Eratosthenes had estimated the circumference of
the earth by physical measurments a couple of centuries before Christ
was born. So geocentrism of that period of time is claimed to have had
a spherical earth at the center of the universe.

The beliefs of the church fathers are the root of what Harran is in
denial of. If the church had followed Augustine's (one of the church
fathers) advice geocentrism would never have become an issue, but they
did not follow that advice, and the Galileo affair was the result.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Why keep lying about this?  You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before.  There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.
Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference.  It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge.  Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633.  It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge.  What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633.  It is
admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had the
judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not a formal
heresy charge that Galileo faced.  Like your recent reference it is only
written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never preceeds heresy.
 They also claim that the pope's actions after the trial were not
official papal acts.  They do not claim that the charges were trumped
up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of formal heresy.  They claim
that the 1616 formal heresy charge against Galileo was never adopted by
the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may be they want to claim that the
sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found
guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, but in order to
break that oath, the 1633 would have had to accept the 1616 judgement
and Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy.  There is no doubt
that breaking that oath would have meant that Galileo had committed
formal heresy because that oath was that Galileo had never committed
formal heresy, and that he would not commit formal heresy.
Removing the evidence doesn't change reality.  Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about
Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before Galileo
faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it was added
to the index.
Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from "heresy"
in 1633.  The quotes from your trusted source did not make the
distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but the
other sources did.
The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza) agree
that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident.  The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633.  That is where the sources disagree.  It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy.  The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.
All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope.  They do
not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal heresy
charge.  It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo affair that
is likely false.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts.  It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.
Your trusted source does not support you.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

The above repost was quotes from your trusted source.  You also snipped
out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the site that
disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that Galileo faced a
"formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want it to be a formal
heresy charge in 1633.  The sentencing charges Galileo with heresy, the
heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  The word "formal"
does not appear before heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that was
against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal appology in
1995 was wrong.  They agree that Galileo faced heresy charges both
times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a formal heresy
charge in 1616.
You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633.  Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not adopt
the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633.  Your trusted
source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal heresy
for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>
This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal heresy.
 The full quote is still below in this post.  Galileo is charged with
heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty of heresy,
but the word "formal" never appears before the word "heresy".  The
source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy.  Just a heresy seems to be open to some
misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about
just a heresy.  That source does admit that Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement was not
adopted by the 1633 court.

Post by Martin Harran
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been guilty
of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted that it
was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633.  It was still a heresy in
1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the sentencing
and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the heresy, but
they did not want it to be a formal heresy.  Their claim is that the
1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never adopted.
You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in 1616
and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal heresy and
heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti and
pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but
they do not claim papal involvement in that case.  If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error. "
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge.  It doesn't matter if
it should not have been a heresy.  It had been believed to be a heresy
for a very long time before the 1633 case.  Your trusted source and all
the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy after the
Council of Trent in 1541.  Their finding about the church fathers and
their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted to mean that
things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all the church
fathers were geocentrists.  Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent.  It was determined to be a formal heresy by
1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric writings were placed in
the Index.
This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.
It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming back
in 1616 and 1633.
You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they had
to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing.  In the
declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had to go to
to get them.  The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine.  The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce.  What is needed is to get a list
of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and some
explanation for why they still existed after 1822.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

You are the one running in denial of the evidence.  There is no
duplication of issues.  Your claims are just false.  Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make.  Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.
It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases.  A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy.  Bruno
would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but they want
to waffle about it because they do not want the pope involved in a
formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type of heresy charge
that anyone wants to support today.  Even the source that doesn't want
it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that the pope was dealing
with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that he had the sentencing
and court judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash
the heresy, but that, that was not an official papal act, and that
Galileo had not been charged with formal heresy.  They want to protect
papal infallibility.
The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism.  Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633.  Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair?  Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 05:08:23 -0500

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[Huge snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

Way to go. Point the finger at the other guy(s).

Hint: KillFile or "Mark Thread as Read" are useful.

[erik simpson]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 05:08:23 -0500

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[Huge snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

Way to go. Point the finger at the other guy(s).
Hint: KillFile or "Mark Thread as Read" are useful.

Killfiles are my favorite.

[jillery]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 05:08:23 -0500

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[Huge snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

Way to go. Point the finger at the other guy(s).
Hint: KillFile or "Mark Thread as Read" are useful.

I don't acknowledge the value of willfully blinding yourself from the
evidence for your expressed opinions. That's what you and the "other
guys" do; a difference you choose to ignore.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and
KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and
KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

Once again, follow your own advice...

Projection is something I do not understand.

But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?

You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Why keep lying about this?  You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before.  There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.
Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference.  It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge.  Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633.  It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge.  What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633.  It is
admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had the
judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not a formal
heresy charge that Galileo faced.  Like your recent reference it is only
written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never preceeds heresy.
 They also claim that the pope's actions after the trial were not
official papal acts.  They do not claim that the charges were trumped
up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of formal heresy.  They claim
that the 1616 formal heresy charge against Galileo was never adopted by
the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may be they want to claim that the
sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found
guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, but in order to
break that oath, the 1633 would have had to accept the 1616 judgement
and Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy.  There is no doubt
that breaking that oath would have meant that Galileo had committed
formal heresy because that oath was that Galileo had never committed
formal heresy, and that he would not commit formal heresy.
Removing the evidence doesn't change reality.  Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about
Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

Yes.

Post by RonO
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Post by RonO
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before Galileo
faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it was added
to the index.
Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from "heresy"
in 1633.  The quotes from your trusted source did not make the
distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but the
other sources did.
The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza) agree
that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident.  The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633.  That is where the sources disagree.  It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy.  The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.
All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope.  They do
not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal heresy
charge.  It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo affair that
is likely false.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts.  It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.
Your trusted source does not support you.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
I was quoting from your source.

You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

The above repost was quotes from your trusted source.  You also snipped
out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the site that
disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that Galileo faced a
"formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want it to be a formal
heresy charge in 1633.  The sentencing charges Galileo with heresy, the
heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  The word "formal"
does not appear before heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that was
against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal appology in
1995 was wrong.  They agree that Galileo faced heresy charges both
times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a formal heresy
charge in 1616.
You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by Martin Harran

I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633.  Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not adopt
the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633.  Your trusted
source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal heresy
for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>
This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal heresy.
 The full quote is still below in this post.  Galileo is charged with
heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty of heresy,
but the word "formal" never appears before the word "heresy".  The
source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy.  Just a heresy seems to be open to some
misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about
just a heresy.  That source does admit that Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement was not
adopted by the 1633 court.

Post by Martin Harran
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been guilty
of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted that it
was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633.  It was still a heresy in
1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the sentencing
and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the heresy, but
they did not want it to be a formal heresy.  Their claim is that the
1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never adopted.
You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in 1616
and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal heresy and
heresy.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti and
pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but
they do not claim papal involvement in that case.  If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error. "
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge.  It doesn't matter if
it should not have been a heresy.  It had been believed to be a heresy
for a very long time before the 1633 case.  Your trusted source and all
the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy after the
Council of Trent in 1541.  Their finding about the church fathers and
their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted to mean that
things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all the church
fathers were geocentrists.  Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent.  It was determined to be a formal heresy by
1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric writings were placed in
the Index.
This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.
It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming back
in 1616 and 1633.
You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they had
to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing.  In the
declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had to go to
to get them.  The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine.  The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce.  What is needed is to get a list
of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and some
explanation for why they still existed after 1822.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

You are the one running in denial of the evidence.  There is no
duplication of issues.  Your claims are just false.  Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make.  Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.
It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases.  A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy.  Bruno
would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but they want
to waffle about it because they do not want the pope involved in a
formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type of heresy charge
that anyone wants to support today.  Even the source that doesn't want
it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that the pope was dealing
with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that he had the sentencing
and court judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash
the heresy, but that, that was not an official papal act, and that
Galileo had not been charged with formal heresy.  They want to protect
papal infallibility.
The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism.  Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633.  Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair?  Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of

the

world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.

What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

Ron Okimoto

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
Ron Okimoto

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 07:02:46 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

It's no surprise that you object to documenting your own willful
stupidity.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:45:04 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

That's probably for the best.

[jillery]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:45:04 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

That's probably for the best.

What's obviously for the best is for you and others to stop posting
willfully stupid ad hominems against me. Of course, that would be way
too much to expect.

[LDagget]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

No no no. You shouldn't be the one apologizing.
I should be apologizing for posting on other topics and not recognizing
that the purpose of t.o. is to seek out opportunities to endlessly
respond
to perceptions of offense in long-standing personal grudges.
Because otherwise injustices will remain on the Permanent Record.
I have failed.

[jillery]

Post by LDagget

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

No no no. You shouldn't be the one apologizing.
I should be apologizing for posting on other topics and not recognizing
that the purpose of t.o. is to seek out opportunities to endlessly
respond
to perceptions of offense in long-standing personal grudges.
Because otherwise injustices will remain on the Permanent Record.
I have failed.

And yet you take time out from your oh-so-busy schedule to add yet
more willfully stupid noise to this thread. The world wonders.

[jillery]

Post by LDagget

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

No no no. You shouldn't be the one apologizing.
I should be apologizing for posting on other topics and not recognizing
that the purpose of t.o. is to seek out opportunities to endlessly
respond
to perceptions of offense in long-standing personal grudges.
Because otherwise injustices will remain on the Permanent Record.
I have failed.

Another irony here is this topic is filled with yammerings from Martin
Harran and Ron O against each other, yet what got your diapers in a
twist is my comment to Erik about his trivially proved lie. All you
have done with your post above is to demonstrate your long-standing
personal grudges against me.

[jillery]

Post by jillery

Post by LDagget

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

No no no. You shouldn't be the one apologizing.
I should be apologizing for posting on other topics and not recognizing
that the purpose of t.o. is to seek out opportunities to endlessly
respond
to perceptions of offense in long-standing personal grudges.
Because otherwise injustices will remain on the Permanent Record.
I have failed.

Another irony here is this topic is filled with yammerings from Martin
Harran and Ron O against each other, yet what got your diapers in a
twist is my comment to Erik about his trivially proved lie. All you
have done with your post above is to demonstrate your long-standing
personal grudges against me.

This just goes to show; with some posters, it's not what is said that
matters, but who says it.

[LDagget]

[jillery]

Yet another example of how you seek out opportunities to endlessly
respond to perceptions of offense in long-standing personal grudges. I
applaud your willingness to demonstrate self-parody.

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:45:04 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson

[...]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

To be precise: you shouldn't have posted a trivially proved lie:
********************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Trump on top 10 worst presidents list
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 07:28:32 -0800
Message-ID: <6338f66b-adcd-4c2c-b82e-***@gmail.com>
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 07:28:32 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson
Flattery gets you nowhere with jlllery. She's next on my killfile.

**********************************************

So much for your "intent".

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip stupidity>

Post by erik simpson

Post by jillery

Post by erik simpson
To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Never say never:
********************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Trump on top 10 worst presidents list
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 07:28:32 -0800
Message-ID: <6338f66b-adcd-4c2c-b82e-***@gmail.com>
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 07:28:32 -0800, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson
Flattery gets you nowhere with jlllery. She's next on my killfile.

**********************************************

[Martin Harran]

OK, I know I said I was finished here but I will add one final
explanation for the record as to why I'm dropping out as a
counterbalance to your predictable claims about me running away.
Taking just one example from several above;

Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."

According to you "This ... agrees that it was a heresy in both
cases."

There are only two explanations that I can see for that - you are
being either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest.

In either case, there is no point in continuing to try to have a
rational discussion with you about this so I will turn to my favourite
prayer and seek the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 17:54:46 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
OK, I know I said I was finished here but I will add one final
explanation for the record as to why I'm dropping out as a
counterbalance to your predictable claims about me running away.
Taking just one example from several above;
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
According to you "This ... agrees that it was a heresy in both
cases."
There are only two explanations that I can see for that - you are
being either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest.
In either case, there is no point in continuing to try to have a
rational discussion with you about this so I will turn to my favourite
prayer and seek the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

Once again, follow your own advice, if only as a refreshing change of
pace.

[RonO]

Post by Martin Harran
OK, I know I said I was finished here but I will add one final
explanation for the record as to why I'm dropping out as a
counterbalance to your predictable claims about me running away.
Taking just one example from several above;
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
According to you "This ... agrees that it was a heresy in both
cases."
There are only two explanations that I can see for that - you are
being either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest.
In either case, there is no point in continuing to try to have a
rational discussion with you about this so I will turn to my favourite
prayer and seek the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

There is absolutely no reason to snip and run from reality. Your own
trusted source agrees with the conclusions from last time.

There are obviously at least 2 classifications of heresy. Formal heresy
is much worse than just a heresy. All the sources put up even your
trusted source calls heliocentrism a heresy after the Council of Trent
in 1541. No one claims that the council of Trent stated that
heliocentrism was a heresy. What they did was make the beliefs of the
church fathers unchallengable with respect to catholic beliefs. Since
all the church fathers were geocentrists all the sources agree that
heliocentrism became a heresy. It would have been a heresy when Bruno
faced the charge in 1600 but it may not have been a formal heresy at
that time. The quotes that I put up from your trusted source called it
a heresy for both Galileo cases in 1616 and 1633, but did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy. Your quote from that
source wanted to make the distinction that it was not a formal heresy in
1633, but the conservative catholic source (probably neogeocentric), the
current geocentrism wiki, and the anti-neogeocentric catholic site all
agree that it was a formal heresy charge in 1616 that Galileo faced.
Heliocentrism had obviously become recognized as a formal heresy by 1616.

The complete 1633 sentencing was quoted. Galileo is clearly charged
with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty, and
in order to be absolved, Galileo had to admit that the heresy was wrong,
that he did not believe in the heresy, nor would he support the heresy
in the future, and that is exactly what Galileo did to save his life.

It looks like the catholics that want to reinterpret the Galileo affair
are the ones that are wrong. They need to do it in order to preserve
papal infallibility because they do not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy charge. They note that the word formal never
appears before heresy in the sentencing (even the recent quote from your
trusted source), but they also claim that the sentencing was poorly
written, and that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his oath
to the 1616 inquisition. The stupid thing is that if Galileo broke that
oath he would be guilty of the formal heresy charge (likely why the
sentencing was written as it was written). The catholics that want to
reinterpret the charge also claim that the 1616 judgement was never
adopted by the 1633 inquisition, but only cited by them because they do
not want the formal heresy charge to apply to 1633. What does that mean
about the reinterpretation of what charge Galileo actually faced? They
would have had to have adopted the 1616 judgement in order to find
Galileo guilty of breaking that oath.

The 1633 waffling doesn't matter. What was settled years ago is still
intact.

There are obviously at least two types of heresy in the catholic church
"formal heresy" is the worst offense and a "heresy" charge is open to
some interpretation (it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about a
non formal heresy charge).

Bruno faced a heresy charge for heliocentrism in 1600, but it likely was
not a formal heresy charge, and he was executed for other formal heresy
charges.

Galileo did face a formal heresy charge in 1616, but there is waffling
about whether it was a formal heresy charge in 1633.

Snipping and running from evidence that came from your own trusted
source will not change reality.

Your quote above is obviously lying or you are misrepresenting the
quote. Your trusted source, and all the other sources would have to be
wrong for that quote to be correct. The anti-neogeocentric site that
quoted the entire 1633 sentencing to show that the word formal never
came before heresy in that sentencing, but they admitted that the
inquisition had charged Galileo with formal heresy in 1616. All the
sources admit that heliocentrism was a heresy, they differ in what type
of heresy it was in 1633.

The anti neogeocentric site admits that the pope had the 1633 sentencing
and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that, that was not an official papal
act, and that Galileo was not sentenced for committing a formal heresy.
They make those claims to protect papal infallibility, but heliocentrism
is still admitted to have been a heresy that needed to be dealt with.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

BTW, a person who posts to somebody who has them killfiled may not be
the wisest person to seek advice from.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:44:50 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

BTW, a person who posts to somebody who has them killfiled may not be
the wisest person to seek advice from.

BTW a person who doesn't follow his own advice is almost certainly the
worst person to give advice. HINT HINT.

[jillery]

Post by RonO

Post by jillery
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".

I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him.

Mostly when he posts self-serving noise.

Post by RonO
How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware

Full stop.

Post by RonO
of what he is doing.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:20:07 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

Galileo's works were on the Catholic prohibited list until way into
the 18th century.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Galileo's views were found to be "contrary to Holy Scriptures" and as
such were not to be held, defended, or taught. Galileo swore up and
down that he wasn't interested in the Copernican ideas he had
published on, but no one believed him, and he was sentenced to house
arrest for the short remainder of his life.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:43:33 -0800, Vincent Maycock

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:20:07 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

Galileo's works were on the Catholic prohibited list until way into
the 18th century.

They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them but the extremely bureaucratic Curia
moves very slowly in recognising its errors, let alone correcting
them.

The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Galileo's views were found to be "contrary to Holy Scriptures" and as
such were not to be held, defended, or taught. Galileo swore up and
down that he wasn't interested in the Copernican ideas he had
published on, but no one believed him, and he was sentenced to house
arrest for the short remainder of his life.

[G]

Martin Harran <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by Martin Harran
The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

I worked for a few years on the Arcetri hill, from there you could see the
place where GG spent his last years, it is a nice little place in the valley
below the hill, but definetely not a "luxury villa".

G

[Martin Harran]

Post by G
[...]

Post by Martin Harran
The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

I worked for a few years on the Arcetri hill, from there you could see the
place where GG spent his last years, it isC in the valley
below the hill, but definetely not a "luxury villa".
G

Fair enough, I was going by the description in the link below [1] but
I bow to your direct knowledge. Nevertheless, I think that the
difference between "luxury" and "a nice little place" is somewhat
subjective; certainly far from the '*dungeon* described, for example,
by Voltaire [2].

[1]
https://www.sma.unifi.it/index.php?module=CMpro&func=viewpage&pageid=474&newlang=eng

[2]
"The great Galileo, at the age of fourscore, groaned away his day in
the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by
irrefragable proofs the motion of the earth"

[Voltaire. 'Descartes and Newton', 1728]

[Vincent Maycock]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:10:54 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:43:33 -0800, Vincent Maycock

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:20:07 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

Galileo's works were on the Catholic prohibited list until way into
the 18th century.

They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

Post by Martin Harran
but the extremely bureaucratic Curia
moves very slowly in recognising its errors, let alone correcting
them.
The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo

Right. Even today, that "Simplicio" stuff is hilarious satire.

Post by Martin Harran
and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

With the key being "other." He was forbidden to go back to his
research on Copernican ideas. That meant keeping track of who visited
him and where he would like to travel to.

Do I understand correctly that you agree that the Catholic Church has
made *some* mistakes in the past, though?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Galileo's views were found to be "contrary to Holy Scriptures" and as
such were not to be held, defended, or taught. Galileo swore up and
down that he wasn't interested in the Copernican ideas he had
published on, but no one believed him, and he was sentenced to house
arrest for the short remainder of his life.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran
They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.

The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.

When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of
literalism in the absence of contrary data. I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to
interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 21:24:48 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran
They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.
The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.

Right. I suppose Holy Scripture would have to be "interpreted"
before one could conclude that anything was contrary to it or not.

Post by Ernest Major
When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of
literalism in the absence of contrary data. I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to
interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

[RonO]

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 21:24:48 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran
They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.
The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.

Right. I suppose Holy Scripture would have to be "interpreted"
before one could conclude that anything was contrary to it or not.

The Reason to Believe old earth creationists continue to claim to be
Biblical literalists. They are not flat earthers, not geocentrists, and
they have a loopy literal interpretation for the sun and moon not being
created on the 4th day (period of time) as is claimed in Genesis. They
claim that one word was left out. The word for "made" or "make" is used
in the Bible verse, but the Reason to Believe creationists believe that
the sun and moon were only "made visible" on the 4th day and not "made"
during the 4th period of time. They understand that the sun and moon
were created billions of years before land plants were created on the
3rd day (period of time), so they are claiming that there was some vapor
canopy shrouding the earth until after land plants were created. They
have some fruity claims that there was a vapor canopy around the earth
for billions of years, but they have no explanation for why it would
matter if the sun and moon were visible or not when only the creator
would have been able to see them from the surface of the earth for
billions of years, and the creator would have obviously known what he
had created when he is supposed to exist outside and inside of our universe.

These types need to believe that they can take the Bible literally,
because they do not have enough faith in their beliefs to live without
the Biblical "evidence" for those beliefs to not be infalible. The YEC
state this clearly. If the Bible cannot be taken literally for all
parts, then there is no reason to believe the parts that you want to
believe. They can't deal with the fact that the Bible can not be taken
literally for aspects of nature that we can crosscheck ourselves. If
the Bible is wrong for the things that we can determine for ourselves,
then there is no reason to believe the things that we can not crosscheck
in order to determine their validity. The YEC do not have the loopy
claim that the sun and moon were only made visible on the 4th day. They
claim that the sun and moon were created the day after land plants, just
like the Bible says.

Ron Okimoto

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Ernest Major
When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of
literalism in the absence of contrary data. I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to
interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

[Vincent Maycock]

Post by RonO

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 21:24:48 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran
They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.
The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.

Right. I suppose Holy Scripture would have to be "interpreted"
before one could conclude that anything was contrary to it or not.

The Reason to Believe old earth creationists continue to claim to be
Biblical literalists. They are not flat earthers, not geocentrists, and
they have a loopy literal interpretation for the sun and moon not being
created on the 4th day (period of time) as is claimed in Genesis. They
claim that one word was left out. The word for "made" or "make" is used
in the Bible verse, but the Reason to Believe creationists believe that
the sun and moon were only "made visible" on the 4th day and not "made"
during the 4th period of time.

I first encountered this in Seventh-day Adventist writings. I looked
up Reasons to Believe, and I found it funny that their, shall we say,
misunderstanding of how science works, was emblazoned in their
self-description on their web site statement (#4, "The message of
nature *will* agree with what the Bible says" emphasis added).

https://reasons.org/single/creation-model-approach

Post by RonO
They understand that the sun and moon
were created billions of years before land plants were created on the
3rd day (period of time), so they are claiming that there was some vapor
canopy shrouding the earth until after land plants were created. They
have some fruity claims that there was a vapor canopy around the earth
for billions of years, but they have no explanation for why it would
matter if the sun and moon were visible or not when only the creator
would have been able to see them from the surface of the earth for
billions of years, and the creator would have obviously known what he
had created when he is supposed to exist outside and inside of our universe.

Ah, yes, the vapor canopy. A classic part of the YEC superstition
that no one seems interested in anymore.

Post by RonO
These types need to believe that they can take the Bible literally,
because they do not have enough faith in their beliefs to live without
the Biblical "evidence" for those beliefs to not be infalible. The YEC
state this clearly. If the Bible cannot be taken literally for all
parts, then there is no reason to believe the parts that you want to
believe.

Non-literal interpretations of the Bible have been around for
centuries, millennia even, but those beliefs were just a
representation of intellectual precocity on the part of the believers
in those days. It wasn't a result of being essentially forced to
believe in non-literal interpretations because of the advancement of
science. It wasn't until well past the Renaissance that it became
unusual to take the Bible at its word about origins by the
intelligentsia.

Post by RonO
They can't deal with the fact that the Bible can not be taken
literally for aspects of nature that we can crosscheck ourselves. If
the Bible is wrong for the things that we can determine for ourselves,
then there is no reason to believe the things that we can not crosscheck
in order to determine their validity.

True.

Post by RonO
The YEC do not have the loopy
claim that the sun and moon were only made visible on the 4th day. They
claim that the sun and moon were created the day after land plants, just
like the Bible says.
Ron Okimoto

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Ernest Major
When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of
literalism in the absence of contrary data. I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to
interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 21:24:48 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran
They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.
The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.
When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of
literalism in the absence of contrary data.

A wee bit more nuanced than that in regard to what is meant by
'literal'. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

'The *literal sense* is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture
and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound
interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the
literal."' [CCC 116]

In other words, 'literal' is whatever meaning was intended by the
authors, not what a plain reading of the words suggests.

Post by Ernest Major
I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to
interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

The main initial issue was that Galileo did not have any proof to
support his conclusions and the *scientific community* were not
prepared to accept them as final until he resolved two specific issues
- how tides are caused and the absence of parallax. He made a
suggestion about tides being like liquid sloshed in a glass but his
fellow scientists dismissed that as risible which undoubtedly added to
his well know hubris. He simply didn't have the technology at that
time to identify the parallax; that wasn't achieved until the 1830s,
nearly 200 years after Galileo's death.

Theology came into it when he wrote his 'Letter to the Grand Duchess
Christina' essay in which he said that the Church was reading the
bible wrong and needed to change their understanding. Changing that
understanding wasn't a real issue - Cardinal Bellarmine had already
said they would have to do so *if Galileo' found conclusive proof for
his ideas* - but what did upset them greatly was a layman taking it
upon himself to lecture them on it, especially in the aftermath of the
Reformation..

That was the start of his real troubles with the Church. They became
worse when the Pope commissioned him to produce a work assessing
heliocentrism vs geocentrism in a neutral way [1] but including some
of the Pope's own thoughts on it; the Pope was understandably upset
when Galileo presented those thoughts as coming from a simpleton and
that contributed to the Pope allowing if not encouraging Galileo to be
put on trial.

[1] Those who have tried to argue here in the past that heliocentrism
was a heresy have never been able to offer any explanation as to why
the Pope would ask for a heresy to be evaluated in a *neutral* way.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 11:05:11 -0800, Vincent Maycock

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:10:54 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:43:33 -0800, Vincent Maycock

Post by Vincent Maycock
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:20:07 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by RonO
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way. It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

Galileo's works were on the Catholic prohibited list until way into
the 18th century.

They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

Post by Martin Harran
but the extremely bureaucratic Curia
moves very slowly in recognising its errors, let alone correcting
them.
The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo

Right. Even today, that "Simplicio" stuff is hilarious satire.

Post by Martin Harran
and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

With the key being "other." He was forbidden to go back to his
research on Copernican ideas. That meant keeping track of who visited
him and where he would like to travel to.
Do I understand correctly that you agree that the Catholic Church has
made *some* mistakes in the past, though?

Of course they did and I have never disputed that. What I seek to
correct is the *wrong* mistakes being attacked. The mistake in the
Galileo affair wasn't that he was guilty of heresy, it was that the
Pope allowed personal pique to permit misuse of Church procedures.
*That* was indefensible and is what needs to be called out.

We should not be surprised, however, about the Church making mistakes,
it's leaders are human and as prone to misdeeds as anyone else. It's
perhaps worth reminding ourselves what Jesus said: "“I have not come
to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:13)

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Martin Harran

Post by RonO
It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

Galileo's views were found to be "contrary to Holy Scriptures" and as
such were not to be held, defended, or taught. Galileo swore up and
down that he wasn't interested in the Copernican ideas he had
published on, but no one believed him, and he was sentenced to house
arrest for the short remainder of his life.

[William Hyde]

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
The last bit of creation science out of the ICR at the turn of the
century before the ID scam took over TO was their RATE project.  In
their first report of what they had found they concluded that the the
theory of radiometric dating was sound, and that the age of the rocks
should be able to be dated using those methods.  Their final
conclusion for the project was that the rocks were really as young as
the Bible claimed they had to be, and that their designer had just
made it so that they all had the components to make them look much
older than they actually were.  Somehow after the initial creation
event that produced rocks that looked billions of years old their god
made the lava and ash from volcanic activity to have the components
that would make them look much older than they actually were even
though current volcanic acivity does not produce ash and lava with the
older composition. God-did-it- that-way was their explanation for why
the rocks look as old as they do.

There was a time I wondered why creationists were so untroubled by the
theological implications of a liar-god who fabricates evidence against
his own existence, so as to send more people into eternal torture.

Once upon a time they did.

Philip Gosse wrote a book attempting to show that G*d had to create the
world with appearance of age, and that this appearance, while not true,
was also not a lie.

His fellow Christians rejected this idea utterly. But times have changed.

Mind you, Gosse believed that everyone barring the tiny fraction of the
population that belonged to his own sect went to hell - he was quite
explicit on this - so believing G*d's lies was not necessary for eternal
damnation.

Sorry if that was old news to you. But at least the typing kept my
fingers warm.

William Hyde

[RonO]

Post by Kestrel Clayton

Post by RonO
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/happy-thanksgiving-here-are-michael-
dentons-top-3-reasons-for-optimism-about-id-2/
The ID perps have an article up on Denton's "top three reasons" to be
optimistic about the intelligent design creationist scam.  This should
likely be taken in context.  Denton has deistic notions that have
never been accepted by the other ID perps in their efforts to maintain
their "big tent" revival creationist scam.  Nearly all the other ID
perps and IDiotic creationist rubes want to believe in personal god
that is constantly involved in matters of our existence.  Denton was
one of the original ID perp fellows, but he quit the ID scam when the
other ID perps did not appreciate his notions about god and evolution
in his second book.  Denton admitted that biological evolution was a
fact of nature and his deistic notions of what the designer could be
did not go over well with the other ID perps.  The other ID perps
published their discussion of Denton's book and Denton was not part of
that discussion. So Denton was no longer a fellow until he likely
needed the money and rejoined after the creationist defeat in Dover.
Denton rejoined knowing that the ID scam had just been a bait and
switch effort since he had left.  ID had only been used as bait to
push the ID perps obfuscation and denial stupidity.  Even after
rejoining Denton has not been treated very well.  I put up one article
where the interviewer was making fun of Denton's claims of being an
agnostic.  The conclusion from that article was that Denton had not
been totally honest about the matter and that he wasn't any type of
agnostic that most people would relate to.  Really, the interviewer
wrote that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when discussing the
matter, and that he admitted that he may only be a back sliding
Christian.
So even the other ID perps know that Denton is a liar, and that they
do not want to believe in his designer.
#1.  "the "relentless" growth of the ID movement, in academia and
around the world."
This seems to be a lie.  The ID network folded up and quit back in
2009, and started COPE.  They have since reactivated their web site,
after nearly a decade of failure with COPE in selling the obfuscation
and denial switch scam, but aren't doing much else.  They still have
not made any press releases since around 2007.  ARN discussion board
and uncommon descent were closed.
Just the fact that the bait and switch has continued to go down 100%
of the time that any rubes want to teach the junk should be
noticeable.  It took around 6 years after the bait and switch was run
on the Utah creationist rubes back in 2017 for the West Virginia
creationist rubes to try again in 2023, and it took 4 years after the
bait and switch on both Louisiana and Texas in 2013 for the Utah rubes
to make their effort in 2017.  There just are not that many
creationist rubes out there that do not understand that there has
never been any ID science worth teaching in the public schools
ID died on TO and uncommon descent after the ID perps put out their
Top Six in their order that they must have occurred in this universe.
Even the IDiots at Reason To Believe stopped being IDiots after the
Top Six came out.  You can go to the Reason to Believe site, now, and
you will be hard pressed to identify them as once being IDiots.  They
used to claim that they were IDiots, but that they did not want to
teach ID in the public schools like the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute. Senator Santorum gave up on the ID scam after having the
bait and switch run on him in Dover in his home state.  These guys did
not quit being creationists, they just quit being IDiotic creationist
rubes.
#2.  "A second reason is the way any materialist explanation of the
origin of life keeps looking more and more implausible. James Tour’s
Harvard roundtable discussion with top OOL researcher Lee Cronin was
telling on that subject."
It isn't that the origin of life keeps looking more and more
implausible, but that it is about the last god-of-the-gaps type
arguments that are still considered to be viable by creationists.
Tour has claimed to understand that ID has been a scam, and that he
does not know how to do any ID science.  Tour's origin of life claims
are due to his understanding that ID is dead, but he can't give up on
the denial. The origin of life is only used as a god-of-the-gaps
denial argument. TO found out that Biblical creationists do not want
to believe in the designer responsible for the origin of life on this
planet after the Top Six was put out.  The designer of the Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is not the creator described in the
Bible.  MarkE, like Tour, could not give up on the origin of life gap
denial, but came to realize that he did not want to believe in the
designer of the gap that he was trying to claim could not be filled by
a natural occurrence.  MarkE quit posting when he could not reconcile
the designer responsible for the origin of life on this planet with
the creator described in the Bible. It is a lose lose proposition.
Even if some designer is found to be responsible for the origin of
life on this planet it would not be the Biblical designer, and the
Bibilcal designer would end up to be the false god.  There is no point
in the gap denial when you will have to admit that the creation story
in the Bible is metaphorical, and cannot be taken literally.
#3.  "And finally, says Denton, there is a mounting realization that
the mind is irreducible to matter, upsetting the Darwinian presumption
that everything must reducible to matter."
The Supreme court has already informed the creationist rubes that just
because science currently cannot explain something, that is not
support for their alternative.  It only means that their alternative
has not been ruled out.  The problem with the reasoning behind #3 and
why it doesn't mean that support for ID is expanding when it really
means that the number of such claims has been constantly been getting
smaller.  In the history of human kind there has been a 100% failure
rate for claims like these.  Every single time we have finally figured
out what is going on, some god has been ruled out.  What god makes the
seasons change? What god makes babies?  No god-did-it claim has ever
been verified.  The earth is not flat.  There is no firmament above
the earth that some god opens up to let the rain fall through.  The
earth is not the center of the universe with everything else spinning
around us.  The 7 days of creation are not consistent with the order
of the Top Six, nor the age of the earth based on Genesis calculations.
The ID perps presented their Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity
in such a way that it killed ID on TO.  Most of the IDiots posting did
not want to believe in the best evidence for ID.  It turned out that
they had only been wallowing in the denial and never wanted to have
the ID perps succeed in producing any valid ID science.  Any valid
science involving the Top Six would just be more science for Biblical
creationists to deny.

Regarding number three: Many years ago, after ID's decisive failure, I
did wonder if "non-materialist neuroscience" would be the next stalking
horse for the religious right's attempt to replace education with
catechism. Unfortunately for the would-be theocrats, the ID scam appears
to have recruited too many true believers, who wouldn't give up even
when it was obvious cdesign proponentsism was moribund. SURELY there
would be jam tomorrow... or perhaps the day after that... or a week from
next Tuesday, for sure!

Sewell tried to salvage the Top Six fiasco by placing them out of order
and using them as independent bits of denial in the traditional way that
they have been presented. He dropped out the bacterial flagellum (#4)
and Cambrian explosion (#5) and changed #6 from just gaps in the human
fossil record to include the sense of self. The reason that the "mind"
wasn't part of the Gish gallop back in the 1970's and 80's was probably
because you can see different forms of consciousness in extant species.
It obviously is not unique, but some type of addition to what other
animals obviously have. The mind of other animals is just as
irreducible as ours. The only reason that it may be coming up for the
ID scam at this point is because their Top Six pretty much killed the ID
scam for any Biblical creationist that can still reason with what mind
they still have.

Ron Okimoto