Decisions of the Holy Office and other Roman Congregations require religious submission. Assent may only be temporarily suspended for very serious reasons. Some theologians affirm that further study will show, in fact, that the pontifical decision was correct and that when theological study of the sources of revelation has helped resolve the apparent difficulty, assent can be given again. The possibility of suspending assent is in this view only a concession the Church makes for the conscience of the theologian who has some grave reservation for an apparently solid reason. Others hold there is a small possibility of actual albeit not harmful error in one of these decisions, even if they have been expressly confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, as in the case of hte Galileo decision. None of this has, ever, been used by any theologian to support the possibility of ecclesia-vacantism or as an argument in favor of it so it is not relevant to this thread.

Pope Pius IX said, "when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations"

Pope Pius XII, "It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

Quote from: cassini

So, I will leave you with a famous quote...One final word Even seven, I promise...Enough said...My final word is a quote

Not that I am saying "hey, get out of here" but, if you are say you are done, then be done. You obviously want to debate this, so stop saying things like this.

As the Brothers point out in their article that God uses certain language in Scripture that the people He is talking to can understand. The passages that geocentrists use to support their theories can be taken as metaphorical. I do not have an opinion either way. I don't believe the Church infallibly interpreted these passages in Scripture. I also do not think this subject has much to do with faith, other than to show that the Pope is not infallible in all things. I understand religious submission and all, but it's not the case here as the decision was reversed. I don't think your Dogmatic Geocentrism has a leg to stand on.

Given every time I want out someone like yourself drags me back in. How can I leave the rubbish you write like 'The passages that geocentrists use to support their theories can be taken as metaphorical.'

Who say so? Galileo was the first, and he was found guilty of suspect of heresy. Now we have the Dimond brothers.
Bellarmine pointed out in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini.

‘Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.’    

For example:

“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat.” --- (Ps. 18:1, 6-7).
 
‘The teaching of the Church has always been that God not only caused the human writers to conceive the truth of what they were writing, but that their language was infallibly chosen so as to express the divinely intended meaning. Without a doubt, the above words depict the sun as moving (‘run the way’). Moreover, in every language in the world, the word ‘circuit’ in the above context describes a real route, a course, a track, a trail, a path or as in this case an orbit around the earth. And this is how mankind read these words. To apply a Pythagorean metaphore here is contrary to the divinely intended meaning and that was decided in 1616.

Here is Fr Roberts on Dimond Bros metaphor. BOTH ARE Galileans. See where this leads to.

‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it unlawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican [Galilean] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, therefore, God could not have been their author?’

Quote from: cassini

Again I repeat Seven, all you say above is but a regurgitation of what Galileo argued in his Letter to Castelli and Letter to Christina. It suggests that all the Fathers, popes and theologians of the Church up to his time did not know the difference between metaphor and the literal. He got his ass kicked by the Church for such a suggestion.

It is also on record that the Church of 1616, 1633, 1664 and 1820 actually confirmed that the 1616 decree was an unrevisable defined interpretation of Scripture. Now you can deny this FACT as long as you like but it will not change it.

How churchmen had their cake and eat it is the real story of the Galileo case. but it is a story you or the Dimond brothers certainly would not want to read so we will leave it at that.

Wow bro, settle down. Ask yourself, is the passage you quote, talking about the sun or God. Again "He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat.
Please show where the Pope infallibly defined this passage as meaning the sun, like how the Pope infallibly decreed that John 3:5 was to be understood as it is written.
None of it matters though since a True Pope, in an ENCYCLICAL, says this:

Quote from: Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum

If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.

[/color]

Notice the bolded. Whether the Earth is fixed or not, it is the work of our Lord and the place of the Redemption. Even the Pope, guardian of our Faith does not believe that this is necessary for us to believe, and taught so in an encyclical.
If one day, when we have a Pope again, he decides to define GC ex cathedra, then you can go around preaching that no one can deny it, I'll be right there with you. I don't think it will happen though.

PS. somehow I doubt you're going to "leave it at that".

How could I Seven.
 
"He [God] hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he [the sun], as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat.

I see you now regurgitate what the Dimond brothers rely on as proof the 1616 decree was not irreformable otherwise known after 1870 as infallible, Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical Praeclara Summorum, praising the Catholic writings of Dante. Hardly an encyclical defining anything other than giving hisd opinion on the man and his writings.
Dante, we remind ourselves, is known for his vision of the geocentric world:

"My desire and will were moved already - like a wheel revolving uniformly - by the love that moves the sun and other stars."

Before we get to it however, let us put Dimons's dogma in perspective. You see the same Pope in 1920 had given a more teaching encyclical

Spiritus Paraclitus

On the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of St Jerome (347-420), the greatest Doctor in the exposition of the Scriptures, Pope Benedict XV issued this encyclical to celebrate the life and work of this great saint. St Jerome of course, like all the Fathers, read the Scriptures geocentrically: For example:

Jerome: In Exodus we read that the battle was fought against Amalek while Moses prayed, and the whole people fasted until the evening. Joshua, the son of Nun, bade sun and moon stand still, and the victorious army prolonged its fast for more than a day. --- Against Jovinianus, Book 2.
Jerome: The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun. The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he travels more slowly than the moon. ---Against the Pelagians, Book I, 19.

With the biblical geocentrism of St Jerome noted, let us now see where this encyclical could be said to have an association with the above interpretation unofficially rejected in the Church since 1835. Making reference to Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus; Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus says:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”

Here it is confirmed that the inspired writers of Holy Scripture had to know the true order of the universe. It also teaches that anything they wrote had to be the ‘unerring truth.’ Does this then not teach that the geocentric language they used had to be the truth? We cannot conceive any other consequence from this teaching. Following this, if geocentrism was wrong then God could not be the Author of these passages. Let us again record Fr Roberts’ view confirming this:

‘Very good. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the [heliocentric] theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages.’ --- Fr Roberts, p.44

Pope Benedict XV continues:

‘But although these words of our predecessor Pope Leo XIII leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church -- nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning -- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point….

I could go on but enough quoted.

1921: In Praeclara Summorum

First let us see the position of churchmen of the time.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered.….. This (1633) sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Papal Commission, reported in the Osservatore Romano, November 4th, 1992.

Here we see churchmen believed heliocentrism was proven as far back as 1741.

Having written in Spiritus Paraclitus of the dangers ‘physical science’ can cause if it is not the truth, watch now as the Pope himself applies an ‘if’ of science to Dante’s most famous work The Divine Comedy, sometimes called ‘the Summa in verse,’

Caught up in the universal belief that science has proven its Copernican cosmology, and unwilling to degrade the Catholicity of Dante’s description of a geocentric Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, the Pope feels he has to rescue all this ‘if’ science is correct. The balance between his faith and the pressure from ‘science,’ in this encyclical, given the fact that no pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree, is not committing this letter to endorsing Galileoism, only to the scenario ‘If the progress of science showed later.’  

Praeclara Summorum  ‘And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From him he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge; it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art. Indeed, his Commedia, which deservedly earned the title of Divina, while it uses various symbolic images and records the lives of mortals on earth, has for its true aim the glorification of the justice and providence of God who rules the world through time and all eternity and punishes and rewards the actions of individuals and human society. It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in such a way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.’

Can you imagine how Pope Benedict XV would have loved Dante’s works if he knew geocentrism was as true as it was in Dante’s time? One of the many reasons alluded to by the Dimond brothers is to say that the 1616 decree was not a binding decree for all time because Pope Benedict XV in this encyclical did not uphold that decree of a moving sun and fixed earth at the centre of the universe. In fact, the Pope takes a neutral stand on the matter submitting to the post-1915 position of science that holds there is no scientific proof for either geocentrism or heliocentrism, that is, spatial relativity prevails. The Pope implies this when he writes: ‘If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation…’ followed by ‘this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought.’ We say let us be thankful the Pope wrote that the earth ‘may not’ be the centre of the universe rather than ‘is not the centre of the universe.’ The difference we can assure you is profound. Given the fact that in his time heliocentrism was still considered the scientific truth by his Jesuits, one surely would have expected the Pope to say ‘is not the centre.’ One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the heliocentrism demanded by the Holy Office in 1820. Like all the popes since 1616, not one of then explicitly denied the 1616 decree officially, or abrogated the decree by way of the Magisterium.