The interpretation of the 'movements' and 'non movements' of the Earth in Scripture was considered by many of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church in the first half of the 17th century.

Having considered tradition and the interpretation of ALL the Fathers with regard the 'movements' or 'non movements' of the Earth, in 1616, Pope Paul V, using the Index as was his prerogrative to issue his papal decree, made it quite clear that the CHURCH found the Scriptures reveal the Earth does not move.

So, play out the Protestant all you like Apollo and think you know more about biblical interpretation better that the Fathers, Cardinal Bellarmine and the popes up to 1741, but I for one, with others on this forum, will not be moved.

.
All the OPINIONS of the Church fathers and the "DECREE of 1616" do not make Geocentrism a doctrine of the Church.  
You should come up to date and look at what the Church did in 1820 or 1822 (?).  At that time the Pope re-examined the
Galileo question of Heliocentrism.  He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism
cannot be condemned.  

It is not a Protestant thing.  It is a reality thing.  A truth thing.  You have NO PROOF for Geocentrism.  All you have is
Bible quotes that say NOTHING about astronomy.  Earthquakes and shaking of the earth have NOTHING to do with astronomy.

"I will not be moved."  You forgot to add, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
I was waiting for you to respond.  Please show proof (outside of the Earthquakes)
that Kepler was wrong about the mathematics of the motion of the planets.

Once again, read my lips, the Church Fathers do NOT define infallible Church doctrines.
Only the Pope does that AND it must pertain to FAITH and MORALS, not astronomy.
You just have to get out of the dark ages.

The dark ages? What was it about that time in history that would cause you (and protestants) to believe that it was "dark"?

.
A belief in Geocentrism, Flat Earth, blood letting to cure diseases, lack of cameras, lack of computers,
lack of internet ;D, using horses for transportation, lack of airplanes, lack of telephones, lack of cable
TV :), lack of electricity, lack of refrigerators, lack of air-conditioners, lack of rockets, lack of really
good telescopes, etc.

Of course, one could call our modern age by a bad name also, because of feminism, internet, rockets,
global elitists, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, Vatican II, etc.

I'm speaking mostly from a non-religious viewpoint.  And astronomy is a non-religious topic, except that
some people make it a religious topic. However, you can be Catholic or Atheist and still believe in
Heliocentrism.

You're speaking from a non-religious viewpoint, okay, but how can astronomy be a non-religious topic for traditional Catholics? God created the universe and everything in it. It has everything to do with religion.

Quite right Meg.  Insofar as the Church has spoken, or the Fathers have taught, or Scripture teaches, Catholics are bound.  Just because someone doesn't know what the Church said, doesn't mean they can deny what is taught.  Some of these people pop off without information having zero knowledge of what the Church has said in a particular matter, and continue to defy Church teaching in ignorance.  It is their duty to find out first before criticizing.  

Quite right Meg.  Insofar as the Church has spoken, or the Fathers have taught, or Scripture teaches, Catholics are bound.  Just because someone doesn't know what the Church said, doesn't mean they can deny what is taught.  Some of these people pop off without information having zero knowledge of what the Church has said in a particular matter, and continue to defy Church teaching in ignorance.  It is their duty to find out first before criticizing.  

.
Right, and some don't know what the Church taught in 1820 AD.  They keep living in 1616 AD.

.
Then everything is a religious topic I guess.  I never thought of my cat as being a religious topic.
But then there must be real-religious topics, right?  Like the ten commandments.

No, of course not everything is a religious topic. Humans have nothing to do with creating the universe. Nothing at all. It was a direct cause of the Word of God. 

When I bake a cake, for example, I have a hand in creating the cake, and so did the farmers who grew and harvested the wheat. God didn't create the cake, though he had a hand in providing the ingredients.

We have to rely on Divine Revelation in the case of the creation earth and the universe. There is such a thing as a hierarchy of truth. We humans are not as clever as we think.

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/
You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

This is the classic jumping to conclusion phenomena so prevalent in Tradition.  Just because they permitted the printing of books, doesn't equate that the books are good to read or the Church changed Her stance on the subject.  There is NOTHING in this statement that says heliocentrism cannot be condemned, just that books can be printed.  Big deal.    

.
You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?  
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

The Church is clear that She is not suppressing modern theory.  That's all.  You have not made a case for heliocentrism, but shown that the Church will not enter the debate by blocking modern theories, because She has already spoken.  

.
Well, some people are saying that in 1633 the Pope condemned Heliocentrism by a decree.
The decree of 1820 by the Church says that it's OK to publish a book that argues for Heliocentrism.
Logical conclusion is Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church, else the Church is contradicting
itself.  The Church has entered into the debate, by saying it's OK to argue for Heliocentrism.
Go ahead twist that around to some kind of nonsense.  
I have proved the case for Heliocentrism, but it's over your head.  I think gravity is over your head.  
Sorry, I just don't know how to deal with such complete nonsense in a nice way. (my fault).

Since the Church absolutely condemned heliocentrism by decree, in very distinct language, as well as in subsequent writings by Popes and prior to the Affair in teachings by Fathers of the Church, and since the Church subsequently permitted the publication of books on the subject, we know automatically that She is merely permitting the publication of books, and not giving license to what She has already condemned.  Reading a few articles on the web does not make you an expert nor have you proven the case for heliocentrism which is not only the basis of pagan religion, but also at odds with Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.  Now, if anything is over anyone's head, it's over yours because you don't even know the Fathers of the Church spoke against heliocentrism, nor are you aware that Scripture renders it false.