Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/12/2024 8:03 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.
>

>
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

 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

 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?
 

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