CathInfo.com

Quote from: cassini

"As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.

Where did heretic De Chardin write this?

Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.

Quote from: Stubborn

...I lived my whole life a trad and never heard of Geo/Helio until it was brought up on CI a while ago, I'm reasonably sure I know a lot of trads over the years who never heard of it either, many have long since died and we pray for them as members of the faithful departed - and I dare say that I highly doubt any of them were judged on whether or not they believed the earth is flat or not or whether the universe orbits around the sun.

They would presumably not be held to account for their incomplete catechesis, if not intentional or born of indolence.
But not so for you...Now the door to truth has been opened; it cannot now be closed.

Quote from: St Ignatius

....Not that it wasn't ever discussed, I just don't recall anyone pulling out their catechism or some Church Declaration/Dogma  to prove one way or the other. I've been under the presumption that this matter was up for discussion, more or less.

P.S. I thought that the main transgression of Galileo was not what he was teaching necessarily,  it was that he put science above the teachings of the Church. Comments welcome on this, please.

-

The first point Cassandar is most interesting. I have written on it before and you are the only one who recognise it. I have been banned from Catholic forums for discussing the heresy of popes and Catholics from 1741 who may have accepted heliocentrism as a truth and as the correct reading of Scripture. I gave sedevacantists a way-out of a dilemma for them by stating that there is culpable and Inculpable Ignorance, that is formal heresy and material heresy.

There is no doubt not one pope since 1741 committed formal heresy in this matter. They were totally convinced that heliocentrism was proven scientifically and geocentrism falsified. Thus their heresy was material, that is no real heresy at all. “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!” as Jesus said from the Cross.

Now from 1905 the world of science has admitted H was never proven nor G falsified. Relative motion was the best science could offer, with H & G only scientific possibilities. Now, as Cassander says, choosing to reject the 1616 decree (H is heresy) cannot be done in ignorance (material heresy) any more, having been informed of the truth. Perhaps if one were to start the poll again some may want to change their mind.

But why did Churchmen continue 'accepting' heliocentrism and the error that the 1616 decree had been falsified after 1905? Was there not one Catholic alive who understood the significance of science's admission?

Here is an opinion on this aspect of the matter;

Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Church of the seventeenth century was not doctrinally or scientifically mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of Rome and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for the Catholic Church in so many spheres after three centuries of ridicule if this was made public. Alas, that message has already been rejected by the vast majority of Catholics aware of it, both shepherds and sheep. For two hundred and sixty years Catholics have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun and made share in the ‘embarrassment’ and shameful ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their Church, their predecessors, once defended a biblical fixed earth and moving sun while condemning Galileo for denying this definition. This of course meant nearly all Catholics had to support the magic, consensus and canonical contradiction that went with that U-turn and of course the popes involved. It was to the Galileans in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote out of context when it suits them. Today’s Genesis must also be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ they say, when it is they, not the Church, that needs the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than their pride in ‘scientific’ knowledge.

happenby said:
 
...  there are very reasonable flat earth explanations for them but delving further belongs to those interested, since I cannot expect to reach anyone unwilling to do their own research.  I did provide one proof in the form of a link to a very short video destroying the notion that distant ships fall below the horizon on a globe.  Unquestionably debunked.
.
Cassandar said:

An interesting assertion.  No FE evidence will be provided because no one does research ...
Maybe no one accepts the inconsistent premises that clearly contradict reality....

..speaking of debunking... the floating ships on the horiizon, beyond the curvature horizon, are well- known optical effects of temperature inversion. A layer of warm air over a cold one bends the light path(refraction) to form images that aree beyond the horizon.


Bahahaha! Not a prayer. Temperature inversion? Warm air over cold? Smoke and mirrors? What rock did you dig this up from under? It has long ago been proven by many (including me) in every condition imaginable that ships that seemingly disappear great distances from a viewer have not disappeared behind the curve, rather, cameras zooming in prove ships to be visible on the horizon long after they "disappear". Without the help of the camera, it is ASSUMED the ship went below the curve because the unaided eye is unable to see it beyond a certain point. This is the kind of easy to find information you should check first before attempting to discuss something like flat earth.