Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:32:03 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

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
>

All dealt with in my other post a few minutes ago as well as multiple
other posts. I can't be arsed with sub-threads going over the same
stupid arguments so from here, I will only be responding in that
sub-thread.