How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?
I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.
The best I can say is the view of geocentrism you've presented is a caricature. You may mean well, and even believe it, but it looks like the sort of thing that non-Catholics come up with because they don't really understand the Church.
That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.
Stanley, I am well aware that the likes of yourself will argue until the cows come home with no intention at all to acknowledge anything I or klas might have to say. However there are others reading this thread and for them I now reply.
Indeed such are your responses that you could well be a machine programmed to simply deny anything it reads. You never once told us if you are a helio trying to make your heresy (yes, once informed, material-heresy becomes formal-heresy) orthodox on account that the Church allowed the flock to read helio books that DID NOT HAVE A VIOLENT ORBITING EARTH. Are you disputing that Pope Pius VII of 1820 put forward this new non-heretical helio as he understood it? Are you saying he put forward a heliocentrism that he knew to be the heretical one? Or like a machine, will you avoid the question once again with further rhetoric?
Klas and I, who have studied the records of the Church on the matter, can swear to God the facts are as we have recorded them. 'How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?'
I note Stanley, or machine, that you keep professing shock as a Catholic, that the Church would allow the subject matter (ex parte objecti
) to be read by the Flock. Boy you must have have a near heart attack to know Pope Paul VI when he abandoned the Index altogether in 1970s allowed the subject matter of hundreds of heresies to be read by the flock.
But there is a second answer to your question here. How would a Catholic respond to a Pope and his Holy Office issuing a decree, infallible or not, whatever that means
, that said a helio reading of the Scriptures was formal heresy and that any of the Flock who insists on that are excommunicated? How would a Catholic respond if Galileo was put on trial, found guilty, and confined to house arrest for a heresy that the CHURCH DIDN'T TEACH? This is what you accuse the Church of 1616, 1633 and 1664 of doing. When I think of the popes, theologians and St Robert Bellarmine and their fight against the Protestant Reformation, their catechism, and the catechism of Trent being told by the likes of you and claudel that they approved a false doctrine and implimented it, I wonder if you are Catholics at all.
Now you Stanley, Claudel or machines, you guys may pretend not to see the absurdity of your question but I would think other readers might.'I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.''A fair hearing,' wow, thanks. 'Infallible'? Again what do you mean by that? Show us a claim for infallibility by a pope in the history of the Church? The word infallibility was not used before 1870. The word 'irreformable' or 'non-revisible' was used in the case of the 1616 decree and it means exactly the same thing. You cannot have a reformable non-reformable decree. Well you can Stanley, but not the rest of us Catholics. Both Pope Urban VIII and Bellarmine's successor in the Holy Office of 1820 are ON RECORD AS ACKNOWLEDGING THE 1616 DECREE AS IRREFORMABLE. I use capitals so that you cannot miss these two demonstrations that were issued by THE CHURCH, not by me or Klas.As to why the Church FAILED to teach the helio for the last 200 years was heretical. Well I have already told you why, but it seems you prefer to ignore why. But for others, it was because they thought heliocentrism was proven in 1820, and you cannot teach as heresy what you believe to be a fact of science. So Fr Olivieri thought up a way to have their irreformable heresy and allow what they believed was proven to be acceptable to the Flock. He said the heretical helio had a violent Earth, but a non-violent helio of 1820 was not heretical. That is why the decrees of 1820 said 'according to modern astronomers.' This left the heresy behind in history, no longer relevant, so could be forgotten without having to deny an irreformable papal decree. But in truth the heresy was to say the orbiting sun of Scripture was not true.'That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.'Finally, If St Thomas can use the thoughts of a Pagan that reflect truth, then I will use a truth uttered or written by a Pagan also. Nor do I consider all non-Catholics as 'enemies of the Church' as you do, not even atheists. But the above does tell me you are a helio, so no wonder you do not like what you are reading.