Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/9/2024 9:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:28:06 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/8/2024 6:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

 [...]
 

>
So you found the thread.

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

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

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

 

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.
 

>
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.
 

  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.
 

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
 

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."
 

>
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.
 

>
At the time of the previous thread we

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

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.

 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.
 

>
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.

 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.