CathInfo.com

Here is what Fr Roberts said you and others propose;
...

Here then Claudel is your opinion, rotten with accusations like above. Well the above is not the Catholicism I learned

My understanding is that you consider the 1616 decision infallible, and yet a decision in 1820/22 stated there were no obstacles for Catholics holding what you believe was infallibly defined as heresy. 

So don't you hold much the same as that list?

In particular, your geocentrist view appears to agree with #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8, and a central part of #2, that a decree confirmed by the Pope may "compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church's keeping."

You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.

I am tired showing the evidence that the Church ruled the 1616 decree irreformable so for the last time here they are again. The first record of this was at Galileo's trial.

‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”    
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1820, when Settele was looking for an imprimatur for his book, fr Anfossi refused to give it one based on the fact that the 1616 was not reformable. Here is what Fr Olivieri, head man in the Holy Office at the time, had to say as recorded from the Docuмents of 1820, recently released and reproduced in Maurice A Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved:

Olivieri then, Commissary General of the Inquisition, does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving Earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite is the case in fact; given one of those decrees found heliocentrism formal heresy, he thereby confirms that the 1616 decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’ Now a papal decree that is unrevisable is an infallible decree.

Stan, can you help us untangle/unpack/understand the following endorsement by Professor Jakub Taylor of Fr. Robinson's book given on Fr. Robinson's website?  See https://therealistguide.com/endorsements.

The endorsement -- don't you wish you had such a clear talking professor in college  -- reads as follows:

Dr. Jakub Taylor


It is not an easy task to write a short endorsement of Fr. Robinson’s book, even if - in itself – the book is not a long opus. The difficulty lies in fear which I experience together with many commentators of the works of St. Thomas: it lies in a justified anxiety that the comment will become much less comprehensible in relation to the scrutinized original. But if, despite the lack of skill, I am to fulfill my task, I should follow a simple pattern of judgment and try to respond to two fundamental questions: does the author recognize the importance of a problem he is dealing with, and does he presents an adequate remedy. In my opinion, the answers to both of these questions appear to be positive. Let me try to explain why.

Chesterton used to mock modern men by saying that “like other barbarians, they really believe the mirror”; and therefore break it, hurting themselves and others in the process. Men have not changed from the time of Chesterton, it seems that human condition reached the bottom of the gnoseological abyss: most of us do believe that the reflections of the ‘mirrors’ represent the essence of being.

Fr. Robinson would agree with this assessment, as he considers the idealistic epistemology the source of most (if not all) contemporary problems, both within the parallel and vertical dimension of human reality. A remedy he proposes is simple: return to the realist cognition and focusing upon causa finita argumentation. Pointing out these two factors proves that author possesses a good intuition and perceptive abilities, features not shared by many. Why is focusing upon modus quo rather than modus quod so important? The way we approach reality is quintessential, as it determines our every-day praxis.
This fact is nicely put into words by a Polish contemporary poet, J.M. Rymkiewicz.  In 2011, he expressed his frustration about the ongoing events by assessing the problem of the destruction of human identity, a disregard towards tradition, and the accomplishments of the past, while at the same time exaggerated, beautified ‘non-reality’ was being imposed by ‘deceivers and villains’. “Nothing is true anymore” - he writes emotively – “we have fiduciary economy, irrelevant problems presented to us as relevant, fictitious state agencies administered by a fictitious government… Even unimportant details of this ‘non-reality’ are nothing but the shards of thoughts of the un-real authorities and un-real literati, who preach to us that this ‘non-reality’ is indeed the essence of what is”.

Polish poets are not philosophers or scholars when it comes to guarding their tongues, but from time to time they manage to name the problem more accurately than others.  Rymkiewicz called this phenomenon a “Great [Cognitive] Darkening”, which is a term semantically close to what Gordon Wood called an ‘Epistemological Revolution’.

Fr. Robinson, following the great tradition of Christian Aristotelianism and thoughts of the erudite English-speaking apologists, managed to describe the very same problem taking the philosophical deductive approach. Comparing to either Rymkiewicz or Wood he did it in much more coherent and compact fashion. Not many thinkers today are capable of such a feat, as most of them shiver in fear at being considered ‘judgmental’ or they pursue the feeling of safety within the ontological realm of ‘concepts’, doing anything to avoid suspicion of being called ‘axiom-obsessed supporters of foundationalism’. Fr. Robinson knows that talking about the absoluteness of truth is not very pleasant to a modern scholar, especially when it challenges the established lie (often sugar-coated by the term ‘paradigm’), but it is – de facto – a very scholarly thing to do. In my opinion, the author of the “Guide” deserves praise for this attempt, as well as for his attachment to the aleithia-oriented philosophical tradition. The fact that he was capable to interweave his very specific (I dare even say ‘sarcastic’) sense of humor within the precise philosophical narration is even more praiseworthy and should be highly regarded by the readers.

If I were to point out the feature of the book that I regarded most highly it would be the following: within the Anglo-Saxon worldview, any epistemological discourse will often end up facing the alleged dichotomy between the realm of religion and the realm of science. It is an obvious categorical shift problem intrinsically affiliated with the Euler diagram. I was very happy to find this issue addressed in the book. I had an impression, that Fr. Robinson, unlike many of his contemporaries, was quite successful in explaining this issue.

Even if Fr. Robinson’s critique of contemporary scholarship might appear to be too harsh, one might at least hope that it will lead scientists to avoid advocacy research, and build their theorems upon the realistic basis or, at least, to encroach the realm of philosophy or theology only after an adequate theoretical preparation. It might be nothing but an expression of my enormous naivete, but I dare to assume that if this guide is to be followed by other works of this kind, there is a chance of effective propagation of realistic thinking not only among the amateur philosophers, but even among us, professional concept-making academicians. A daring think to hope indeed! And I thank Fr. Robinson for giving me this hope by writing his extraordinary book.

Jakub Taylor is a research professor in the Academy of East Asian Studies at Sungkyunkwan University, in Seoul, South Korea. [Would it be uncharitable to hope that he remain there?]

---