Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/11/2024 1:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:14:25 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

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.

  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?

 

>

>
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

 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.]