I frequently see the talk about when the Church condemned heliocentrism, Galileo, and Copernicus....but what about when the Church allowed heliocentrism and unbanned the publications. On September 11, 1822, the College of Cardinals stated, "The printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." Two weeks later Pope Pius VII ratifies the Cardinals' decree. In 1835 Galileo's works were removed off the Church's banned book list.
So if the Catholic Church said it was ok to publish, read, and believe in these scientific works, then would it would stand to reason that this is the Church's position on the subject. If the Catholic Church adopted this nearly 200 years ago, then I submit Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to satisfy your demand.
The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633. None of these blurbs directly promote it and are subject to further discussion in and of themselves as long as they do not usurp the authority of the decree that has been handed down.
In a letter of 31 January 1985 to Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, regarding the book Poem of the Man God, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation, who later became Pope Benedict XVI), referred to the 1966 notification of the Congregation as follows: "After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (15 June 1966) that, as was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which has not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful."[52]
To clarify, are you trying to conflate the decisions an edict of College of Cardinals of 140 years pre Vatican II that was ratified by Pius VII and a letter between two Cardinals of Post Vatican II? Its easy to repeat that the Church condemned it, but you seem to disregard everything else after that. The development of the scientific process from Pascal, developments of mathematics, and discoveries of all the Catholic scientists were the building blocks that the current scientists use.
No one has refused to pay attention except globers who insist the NASA narrative is true. The Church has condemned heliocentrism and Her saints have favored flat earth and explained flat earth from the beginning. Nothing AT ALL suggests otherwise historically speaking. If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.
This is what I have a hard time with....
1) Where is one, Catholic Church approved, flat earth model that is scientifically sound and proven? If flat earth was Their official position, then it would have been studied by the Catholic priestly scientists listed. There would surely be a model that the Church would approve for study after almost 500 years. Right? All the people that I listed that were priests, Franciscans, Benedictine, Jesuits, etc, would not have published their scientific findings on gravity (which I have been told doesn't exist on this forum), planetary studies, descriptions, orbits (I have seen it posted on this forum that planets do not exist), if the Church didn't approve. You can't say they "worshiped NASA or bahl earth". They would have studied and published flat earth docuмents. So where are all these flat earth publications that have been studied by Catholic scientists over the last 500 years.
2) In 2017, an age full of technology, discovery, and communication, would the flat earth group have a set list of things they concretely believe or disbelieve. Flat earthers repeatedly post about the condemnation of heliocentrism, but don't seem to agree on more than just that. I know I'm fixated on planets and gravity, but they are two examples of what bother me about this. I have read on this forum that planets are burnt out stars, that they give off electric discharge and that produces the light that we see from them, or that they don't even exist. If gravity does not exist, then why are the priestly Catholic scientists through out the ages that have developed equations for gravity. If these equations were not real, then the science behind them would be easily disproven. If these equations were not real, they could not be replicated. So either the Church was correct in its condemnation and the science behind globular, planetary, and gravity are invalid.....or....the Church was wrong its condemnation and the sciences developed by the Church in that period are correct. So then a morality question for you: If this science from the "Catholic world" as you put it, is the foundation of modern science, and is at conflict with your 1600 condemnation (and you disregard 1822), what science are you using to prove flat earth?
3) Taking away the science, and focusing on the theology, am I understanding it would by so many of the posts, is that its morally wrong to believe something that the Catholic Church condemned in the 1600s? If this is true, then it would a deviation of Catholic belief to disagree with your biblical quotes that have been posted? Would you consider this a mortal sin, heresy and/or apostasy? if so, then which traditional Catholic priest do you receive the sacraments from? There are none to my knowledge that believe and teach flat earth. If it is not a mortal sin, heresy, and/or apostasy, then what's the big deal.
Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 93290 times)