Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 1/3/2025 12:39 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 [snip for foicus]
 

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

 On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 [snip for focus]
 

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