BTNYC makes a sober charge. It merits a sober reply.

Accusing roscoe of heresy is morally premature and for that reason alone, ill advised. Rather, accuse him of maladroitness of expression if he must be accused of something; of that charge he is certainly guilty. But it is not a hanging offense—in this life or the next. Whether it's a banning offense is the Moderator's call.

The primary objection toward the quote placed in evidence as the prosecution's exhibit A ought to be, not that it is plainly heretical, but that it clumsily misrepresents Sacred Scripture in stating that the Bible claims "that [the earth] is fixed in position." It does nothing of the sort; rather, it takes the earth's fixity for granted—at least with respect to the objects in the celestial sphere and the creatures that move on the earth's surface. To go beyond that claim is to read into the text one's own predilections—theological, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise.

I have objected in the past to the offhand equating of "inerrancy" with "literalness," however well meaning it may be. I object to this equation once again. First and foremost, determination of what constitutes true "biblical inerrancy" is a matter that should continue to be reserved to the judgment of authentic Scripture scholars in the service of the Church and, particularly, to the judgment of those within the Church who are divinely ordained to write, speak, and teach with authority about inerrancy and to decide to what precisely that term may be said to apply.*
_______________________

In the past two or three years, I have seen geocentrism bid fair to become for self-styled Trads a mandated institution, a litmus test, perhaps even a metaphorical equivalent of an institution that secular post-Christian Western society has made a monstre sacré: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage. Swear allegiance to it, or face banning from the public square and denunciation as a heretic and leper. As there is no credible doctrinal or magisterial ground for regarding heliocentrism as dangerous to the Faith, let alone a condemned position,** this crescendo of insistence on geocentric purity is certainly testimony to the crisis of catechesis in the postconciliar world and may yet serve as a fruitful shaft in our enemies' quiver—indeed, in the Enemy's quiver.

Sedevacantist fantasies, the wilder the better, can always count on a respectful hearing hereabouts. Speak the name of Copernicus or Galileo without spitting, however, and brace yourself for a veritable Superstorm Sandy of down thumbs to descend.

If the statements above win me banning in addition to or instead of roscoe, so be it. I've already written that comment 999 would be my last one anyway.

As for poche's banning, I have no objection, Your Honor.
_____________

* One of the things I wrote several years ago was that the very meaning of "literalness" is far from the simple matter that many of CI's denizens take it for. (As entire books, long ones, have been written on this term's meaning and implications, I shall not attempt to provide an overview suitable for members of a generation that goes for information and instruction to YouTube as a first resort.) At the simplest level, recall that every language, including those of the human authors of Scripture, has idioms and other structural and narrative forms that are largely or entirely invisible to the native-born speaker but may represent huge stumbling blocks for the later learner or the student. A homely, quotidian, but apt example is the way the French language styles the matters of sunrise and sunset. Do even French-speaking geocentrist Traditionalists think that the sun wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night? To pose the question is to answer it.

** Rather than ban roscoe, I propose banning cassini, who has—either from pertinaciously stubborn ignorance or conscious malice—insisted for years that Pope Paul V infallibly condemned heliocentrism, damned those who held it, and declared those who merely entertained it theoretically excommunicate. This is a blatant falsehood and a vile slander on Pope Paul and on every orthodox pope and prelate in the 350 years between 1616 and the Vatican II-orchestrated attack on the Church and its immemorial teachings. Yet cassini is in good odor hereabouts, isn't he? No one calls for his banning—even less for his retreat from scandalous ignorance for the good of his soul and the souls of innocent others his perjuries may poison.

Why can we have a Poll and vote on the Banning's.