CathInfo.com

Cassini has shared a great deal of research on this matter and it has puzzled me.  How could the Church declare Heliocentrism is heresy and then reverse itself while remaining indefectible?

I'm still not sure of the answer and would like to hear what others here say, but this is an explanation that I found at this blog post:


https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html

Does this solve the problem of indefectibility or not?



Ultimately, there were issued two condemnations of Galileo; one in 1616, and more seriously in 1633. The condemnation of 1633 is the one that needs to be understood. It reads:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically]  and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

This decision clearly labels heliocentrism as heretical, and that is because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. What must be discerned is (1) whether the decision infallible and (2) even if not infallible, must we not believe it on Magisterial authority? If not, how is that any different from Feeneyites who claim we only need to believe ex cathedra teachings?

The Galileo Decision Does Not Meet The Requirements Of An Infallible Decree

The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly defines the conditions necessary and sufficient for an infallible decree.

We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by his supreme and apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. (See Pastor Aeternus).

Therefore, the five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:

1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)

2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)

3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)

4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)

5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).

Applying it to the decree of 1633, it does not constitute a doctrinal definition (#4) since it was personally addressed to Galileo alone and since its direct object was the condemnation and absolution of a single individual – a factor which is also incompatible with conditions #2 and #5, namely that the pope should be acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, as well as ordering his doctrine to be held by the whole Church.

My article-- The Real Galileo can be read at firstjesuits.wordpress.com