So did the Church get Geocentrism wrong, or is Geocentrism actually true? How is one to respond when anti-Catholics tell you "how can you possibly say that your Church is infallible with the blunder on Geocentrism?"?

You of course cannot say "well, the Church got that one thing wrong, but not the rest!" because obviously the whole notion of infallibility falls apart even with a single mistake.

I will read that. But Pope Benedict XV seems to have said that the Church or at least the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, was in error and mistaken:

In Praeclara Summorum #4:
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.

But the Council of Trent declared that nobody can ever deviate from the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Please read this and let me know what you think:

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf

I already began to read it and I'm on page 12.

Have you read J.S. Daly's article entirely, Exurge?

Pope Benedict XV

I am familiar with it, and it is used sometimes to claim Geocentrism is not a matter of faith. Likewise, in the same way it is argued sometimes that the authority of the Fathers is only on matters of faith and morals.

But both these arguments are hardly convincing. St. Robert had answered it like this,

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

“If there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe…and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary…But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration.”

“I add the words ‘the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God.  Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.”

In my opinion the correct view without a doubt is Geocentrism, but until such time as from reason alone the same can be credibly shown, the Church permits the other view.

I haven't finished reading the Daly article. I'm on page 26 and it is annoyingly overly-repetitive.

Daly is welcome to his opinion. What he was not aware of is that in 1820 the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was 'irreversible.'

Source for this please.

Given the term infallible only came into use in 1870, 'irreversible' and other such expressions amounted to the same thing. Moreover, Mr Daly was a sedevacantist I believe when he wrote this. The 1741-1835 acceptance of Copernicanism by the popes in 1741, 1820 and 1835 would have made them heretics according to the 1616 decree, and every pope since then who did also. This would destroy the whole idea of sedevacantism, so Daly tried to save sedevacantism for them by his synthesis.

The Popes didn't declare heliocentrism true did they? I recall someone telling me that they allowed it for research purposes, not stating that it was now true and geocentrism false.

A Fr Roberets in 1870 and 1885 also wrote a synthesis showing it was of course an infallible decree of the ordinary magisterium. The Dimond Brothers, also sedevacantists joined the 'it was not infallible' lobby. Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson's father, another sede, also filled his book with the old 'null and void' 1616 papal decree. If one reads the dogma on infallibility at Vatican I one can tick off every box with the 1616 decree defining a fixed sun belief as formal heresy.

I think Daly proved that it didn't fulfill all 6 conditions to be infallible.

The Church does not get things wrong. This has to be the first article of faith for anyone calling or thinking themselves a Catholic.

So how can you say this refutes sedevacantism?

I haven't finished reading the Daly article. I'm on page 26 and it is annoyingly overly-repetitive.

Quote from: cassini

Daly is welcome to his opinion. What he was not aware of is that in 1820 the Holy Office admitted the 1616 decree was 'irreversible.'

Source for this please.?

How refreshing it is to see such worthy debate, and I am delighted to answer as best I can. I do not know how to box quotes seperately so I will just answer in order as above, but ONE answer PER POST.

The infallibility of the 1616 decree.
in his book retrying Galileo  2007, M.A. Finocchiaro records the exchange between the the Copernicans in the 1820 Holy Office headed by the Commissary General of the Inquisition Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri and the few remaining ‘traditionalists’ led by the Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi. Finocchiaro writes (p.193) 'Many docuмents pertaining to the Settele affair have survived, and almost all of them have been recently published.'

Here is all Daly gave us of the affair:
 5. Subsequently to all the decrees which condemned heliocentrism, the Church came to authorise belief in the doctrine which it had previously condemned. This it did especially under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757 when heliocentric writings were deleted from the Index of Forbidden Books, in 1820 when Pope Pius VII granted the appeal of Canon Settele against thedecision of Monsignor Anfossi, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, refusing an imprimatur to his work Elements d’Astronomie, and in 1822 when the same Pope approved a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition permitting books teaching that the earthmoves be published even at Rome itself. It is, of course, quite impossible that the Church should authorise belief in an infallibly condemned heresy, awarding he Roman Imprimatur to a book teaching it and authorising other such books to be published at Rome itself with ecclesiastical approval.
 
'It is of course impossible" Daly writes, echoing a thousand other 'good Catholics' throughout the years. How many other impossibles however, does Daly pass over, like 'it is impossible for a pope to define and declare as a matter of faith, a heresy, and bind the Catholic world to this under pain of self excommunication something that was not a heresy? Which 'impossibility' do you think is worse, doing it in the first place, or trying to undo it in the second place?
had Daly read the details of this 'authorisation of belief in the doctrine which it had previously condemned' and how it was done he would have added another half dozen 'impossibilities' to his synthesis. He does not tell you the grounds upon which they got rid of their ban. Had he known he might have become a Protestant rather than appealing to get us all believe this is 'impossible' or that is 'impossible' in the Church. I tell you what is impossible, the only impossibility we can believe if we are to remain Catholic? It is impossible for an infallible, official decree to be overturned by another official decree. Thankfully for catholicism is that granting an imprimatur is not exactly an abrogation, merely a derogation.

Here is a summary of what Finocchiaro said from The Earthmovers:

The Status of the 1616 Decree

Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all. Throughout his summary he never ceases to taunt Anfossi and his arguments (that nowadays cannot be faulted) in any way he can. For example: ‘This proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity.’ ‘This is the great misconception which the Most Rev. Father has in his head.’ ‘The fact is that you say nothing with any perspicacity or with distinct clarity.’ ‘You make so much noise against such a maxim.’ ‘The Rev Father must be joking when…’ ‘I find [the Rev. Fr.’s] internal incoherence stupefying.’ ‘He also dares to say…’ ‘Why, Most Rev Father, instead of talking off the top of your head… ’Finally I am ashamed for him of what he says…’ ‘Before stopping this modest writing of mine…’ ‘I believe I have demonstrated that nothing that has been produced by the Most Rev. Father has any validity; on the contrary, he has produced many things that are wrong.’ ‘He has been seduced by unknown persons who are incompetent.’
     But now it is time to tie down some loose ends. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1640 decrees, he then tries to save his Church and if this results in his contradicting himself, well who would notice that in such a lengthy synopsis.

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite in fact, he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and could not be reversed.
     
Finocchiaro comments:

‘This reply is interesting. Insofar as it spoke of unrevisability rather than infallibility, it was dealing with a more manageable concept. Moreover, it seems to presuppose that there was a papal decree against the earth’s motion, and so Olivieri’s criterion for a papal decree seems less stringent than those prevailing today. He seems to regard a papal decree as one which the pope made while discharging his official functions, such as being president of the Congregation of the Holy Office; examples of such decrees would be Paul V’s decision that [a fixed sun was formally heretical] and that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture (endorsed at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February and 3 March 1616) and Pope Urban VIII’s decision that Galileo be condemned (reached at the Inquisition meeting of 16 June 1633). Although Olivieri’s criterion was probably historically correct, it is important to point out that the definition of a papal decree ex cathedra was undergoing some evolution…’

Finocchiaro uses the wrong word here, for the law of God does not ‘evolve,’ that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another. The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal decrees. What the Fathers of Vatican I did was clarify the conditions of a pope’s extraordinary infallibility but it also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility that extends for example to defined disclosures of revelation in the Scriptures.
     So here in 1820 the Holy Office once again agrees the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible, just as it did in 1633. Now it seems to us that a papal decree that is irreversible must by inference be infallible in the least meaning of the word. In justice it must be so, for the Church could not claim divine assistance if an ‘immutable’ papal decree defining and declaring a truth revealed in Scripture and its contrary formal heresy, and charge Galileo with that same heresy, could later be considered erroneous and false, let alone proven to be so. This concept for Catholicism is not Catholicism.

0

I haven't finished reading the Daly article. I'm on page 26 and it is annoyingly overly-repetitive.

Quote from: cassini

The Church does not get things wrong. This has to be the first article of faith for anyone calling or thinking themselves a Catholic.

So how can you say this refutes sedevacantism?

Sedevacantists say a pope who embraces heresy cannot be a pope. The question as to whether any of the popes since 1741, when Copernicanism was still known to be a heresy, personally embraced the heresy, then - according to sedevacantists - they ceased to be legal popes. Now an illegal pope's dictates are worthless in their books, which puts a huge question mark on the whole history of papal acts since 1741. I mean, where do they start?

Now for sedevacantists that rather puts an end to their confining sedevacantism to Vatican II popes and after. So, it is crucial they try to portray Copernicanism as a 'non-infallible' heresy, as if that will solve their problem. The non-infallible heresy lobby would have us believe is a 'not really a heresy' and can be taken with a grain of salt.

If I were a sedevacantist I would plead 'material heresy' does not count to declare sedevacantism. If any of these popes started to believe in copernicanism based on the fact that they really thought science had proved heliocentrism true, then they had no choice.
But Fr Anfossi did not share this view and he told them all that heliocentrism was never proven true and that it was the duty of Catholics to chose the Church's word over that of scientists.
And boy would I like to go to court and see how they get on.

Meanwhile Daly and the Dimond brothers have convinced enough of those who still think like traditionalists that the 1633 was not infallible and that is all that is needed to get catholics to go along with the 1841-1835 turnabout as all perfectly Catholic.