Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/10/2024 1:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

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.
 

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