Copernicus was a scientist but not an Atheist-- Have U read his letter to Pope Paul III?

Trent was a thing of the past by the time the Gregorian Calendar is put into use. If Pope Gregory is going against Church Fathers, it is news to moi.

I do not deny that the Earth is the center of U--- in a spiritual sense.

I would advise reading the letter of Copernicus to Pope Paul III. After reading it U may want to reevaluate your assertion that he was not a true scientist. What exactly were his 'real intentions'?

2 of the 3 parts of Copernican Doctrine have indeed been proven false. One part( E rev around S) has been proven true. The entire satellite communication system in use today is based on the idea that E rev around S. The fact that it works is proof that Copernicus was right on one count.

If U have not read the letter of Copernicus to Paul III, U are quite uneducated with respect to this topic.

Why don't read actually read Copernicus' work concerning his system instead of just a letter? In there, he attacks the Church Fathers for being uneducated, just as you have done here against me. And I see you keep avoiding the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers concerning the DOCTRINE of geocentrism. Einstein and other reputed physicists has admitted there has been no proof of earth going around the sun. In you I see the arrogance of heliocentrists. Why don't you actually read recent scientific articles that show the earth to be really at the center of the universe, confirming the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (even though atheistic scientists deny it)?

Let's see: Church Fathers vs. Pastor and Copernicus. I say: CHURCH FATHERS and Trent and St. Robert Bellarmine!!

BTW, Pope Paul III didn't ask for heliocentrism on Copernicus' part; all he asked was to fix the calendar.

All this fixation on mathematics and non-magisterial letters!! This tells me you don't care about the teaching of Trent or the Church Fathers or St. Robert Bellarmine. It also tells me you ignore what modern astronomers and physicists admit: that heliocentrism is only preferred not proven. The letter to Paul III only presented heliocentrism as a hypothesis, not proven fact, which was condemned by Urban VIII. You can't get around that. All your red herrings would obscure this fact!

BTW wise guy-- I ACTUALLY HAVE  read De Revolutionibus. I happen to be holding my copy of the 1999 Easton Press edition in my hands. U will find in the book a copy of the letter of Copernicus as well as an intro by AM Duncan and  forward by Robert De Kosky. I suspect I am the only member of the Forum who has actually read it.

I would venture to say that U have not read any of this nor von Pastor on the reorganisation of the Calendar. I think Wikipedia has the Gregory XIII volume online.

I have never said that Copernicus spoke in any other than hypothetical terms & I am quite familiar with Bellarmine as well.

If U have been following my remarks, I do not believe in heliocentrism.

You could have fooled me. I call your ideas heliocentrism, since you believe the sun to have finished its orbit not in a day, but 200+ million years (if you believe modern "science"), and also because you believe the earth still goes around the sun. And also you seem to believe that fraud, Einstein. Sungenis also read that book of Copernicus, and he also saw it full of obfuscations and downright praise for the Greek heliocentrists; not a word of interpretation of the Church Fathers, except one Church Father, deprecating him and implicitly all the others.

I need not read anything except the Church Fathers and the official condemnations of 1633, condemning the idea that the earth is revolving around the sun and that the sun is immovable as heresy. Unless you believe the Pope and the Holy Office did wrong to condemn it, since you believe geocentrism to be only scientific opinion. In which case, there is nothing else to say, except you prefer Copernicus (and everyone following him) to the unanimous Scriptural interpretation of the Church Fathers (and modern findings confirming it, such as the concentric distribution of quasars and microwave radiation from the earth). I see in all your posts an intellectual arrogance.

Copernicus is very involved in the re-organisation of the Calendar & U as a Catholic should have a great respect for his work. He knew that there were problems with his theory & submitted everything to the Popes authority.

He is one of the great men of history & an example of how the minds of the Church lead the world.

Copernicus, a great mind? Spare me! He made a total of 20 or so observations of the stars and planets; the rest, he took willy-nilly from minds greater than he, such as the ancient Greek astronomers, both geo- and helio-. He preferred the sun-worshipping helios. As for his claim that his epicycles were less than Ptolemy's, that is a lie. Ptolemy had only 40, Copernicus had 48. Copernicus lied about Ptolemy, saying Ptolemy's system had 80 eipcycles.

Good thread.

Even got a rise out of roscoe calling another member here a "wise guy".