CathInfo.com

These two sentences maintain a contradiction.

I see no contradiction.  Explain.

Nonsense.

Another idiotic comment.  Jesuits were in fact predominantly Molinists ... Molina himself being a Jesuit.  In terms of being enemies of EENS dogma, that's well docuмented, that the earliest fabricators of the "Rewarder God" innovation (after 1500 years of unanimious teaching and belief that explicit faith in Christ is necessary by necessity of means for salvation, something confirmed later by the Holy Office).  This theory then began multiplying and then blended in with Molinism to basically lead to the modern Jesuits like Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner, simply a logical progressoin of Jesuit naturalism.

You just spew bullshit without any evidence, based on what you want to be true, oblivious to how you contradict yourself from one sentence to another, and cite no evidence or arguments for any of your crap.

But you just declare it to be "nonsense" and that makes it so.

Condemnation of Heliocentrism was ... explicit and formal, with full papal approbation.

Lifting of the Condemnation ... never happened explicitly but only implicitly (until Wojtyla, but then we can all agree to ignore him).  Benedict XIV permitted the removal of heliocentric books from the Index.  Galileo's books remained on the Index until the early 1800s.  Pope Pius VII permitted some heliocentric books to be published in Rome, and the Holy Office under him said that authors / books may convey the Copernican system.  So not a theological statement, just a practical one with the implication that it's no longer considered heresy, since if the Pope considered it heresy, he would not permit it to be dealt with.

Now, I must have missed the part in Vatican I where the Pope is infallible in failing to condemn error by tacitly allowing it to be held in removing books from the Index, or in failing to condemn error in general, since III Constantinople and Pope Stephen II anathematized Honorius precisely for failing to condemn error.

We can ignore where Wojtyla apologized in 1992 for the injustice done to Galileo, but in these other cases there was never any direct rejection of the Holy Office decision against Galileo (the condemnation of heresy).

Both were issued by the Holy Office, so some theologians hold that Holy Office decrees aren't infallible per se.  But if EITHER of these has greater weight or authority, then it's clearly the emphatic and explicit condemnation of heliocentrism as heresy, and non-geocentrism as proximate to heresy, rather than the "OK, you can write about it in your books".  But the two are incompatible in in one or the other the Church or the Holy Office, or someone "erred".