There's plenty wrong with emphasizing activity over prayer, where you dispense with the prayer that was considered indispensible from time immemorial for all priests to permit.

Then you idiotically contradict yourself when you say that the Jesuits did nothing wrong in defying their suppression, because it's what the Church "really wanted".  That's absurd.  So they Jesuits can read the minds of the Pope that the Pope REALLY WANTED them to not be suppressed even after suppressing them, and they were suppressed just by enemies of the Church.  This was after you said that there's nothing wrong with them requesting dispensation from Divine Office "provided they obeyd the Pope" ... I guess, then, except of they decide the Pope "didn't really mean it".

Comeo on, man ... you can do better than this.

Did you know the divine office at one time didn't exist? It didn't exist on Pentecost. Which means it can be dispensed with because it was a Church imposed duty, once not existing and then existing.

The Church still knew the same Jesuit priests were still functioning as priests, the same mindframe, virtually the same personal routines. Are you one to be fooled by "suppress the Jesuits" meaning they were just all laicized and sent home?  St. Alphonsus said we all must honor the Providence of God in such a move, and working with lesser evil and double-effect doesn't "feel" good but are truly useful and good.

In 1616, the Holy Office, on Pope Paul V’s order, stopped Galileo's assertion by declaring the following.

Thanks for jumping in.  I figured you would, with the relevant factual information.

Do you have the citation regarding non-geocentrism?

Ironically, despite Freind here promoting "heliocentrism", the fact is that nobody holds that anymore, not even mainstream science ... since according to Newtonian physics, the sun is not immovable, nor is it the center of the world (by which they mean created universe), but rather event the solar system moves around the barycenter of the solar system, which depending on the planetary alignments, isn't necessarily even within the physical boundaries of the sun.  In addition, mainstream science now holds that the sun and the planets with it, are hurtling through space at the rate of between a half million and a million MPH around the galaxy (another number they keep changing), and then when you factor in the (all alleged of course) movement of the galaxy through the universe, it's "many millions" and I'm unable to find a more precise calculation, though it's not necessary for our purposes.

So no modern astronomer holds that the sun is immovable, and the center of the world.  So despite Freind here claiming that "heliocentrism" is tenable ... that's great, except nobody even holds it anymore.

Consequently, the decree condemning a non-geocentrism is far more important.

As for why the prohibition of heliocentrism had been lifted later ... it's fascinating how you explain that the Pope had been duped (willingly) into believing that the original condemnation only had to do with a specific type of heliocentrism that had been promoted in Galileo's day, but that the version during HIS day was no longer subject to the condemnation.

As you point out, there was no such qualification in the original condemnation, and this sounds like a "Modernist" type of "development of doctrine" under the guise of "deeper understanding" if ever there was one.

This pattern appears to me similar to what they did with usury, where the Church had always condemned it, but then of course the typical apologetic is that the modern banking system is "different" and not subject.  If anything if's far worse, making Shylock's medieval usury appear rather respectable and honest by comparison.

This also reminds of my oldest son when he was little.  At one time he was tapping his pencil on his desk rhythmically, causing a distraction.  So we asked him to stop tapping his pencil on the desk.  He stops for a moment.  Then suddenly we hear the tapping again.  We look up, and ask him why he hadn't obeyed, and he said that he did ... and pointed out that he was now using a pen for the tapping.

You do know the Church has to make decisions that pertain to "double effect" and "lesser evil", right?  Which means the decision was ultimately useful and good. You only look at the "evil" and blame the Church for it. Bad.

Which decision now ... Divine Office, or the one regarding heliocentrism?  Yes, obviously some decisions are made based on prudential judgments, and my very point regarding Divine Office is that prudential judgments are not protected as infallible, and many popes have made poor prudential judgments that were later understood to have been such (even by the Popes themselves) ... such as Pius XI regarding the Cristeros, and of course Pius XI and Pius XII filing to perform the consecration of Russia to Our Lady of Fatima, among many others.

So, the Jesuits agitating to be dispensed from the Divine Office demonstrated their prioritization of "activity" over prayer, which the Church had long know to be a recipe for disaster, which is why she had LONG insisted of the clergy saying the Divine Office.  That spirit manifested itself, and then bore fruits.  Now, another aspect of why the Jesuits became an unmitigated disaster is their immersion into secular study.  While there was some benefit to it ... the drawback was that they also imbibed the spirit of the world's academia, which especially in scientific matters, beginning with the time of Darwin and Lyell, had become openly hostile, anti-Christian, and atheistic.  At some point, instead of the Jesuits influencing broader academia, they were poisoned by it.

That's akin to what happened in Vatican II, where Roncalli claimed to believe that by opening the doors of the Church to the world, the world would be sanctified (he know this was not true, but that was his story and he stuck to it), but the fact is usually the other way around, where the pollution, some "smoke of Satan" entered the windows.  If you open the windows when you know that you live near a factory that's emitting toxic fog, you're not going to get fresh air coming in your windows.  Similarly, if a priest decides he's going to hang out at a brothel or among drug dealers, attempting to "convert" them, in most cases, they'll gradually become desensitized to the evils there, making them more susceptible to falling into them.  Catholics are instructed to avoid bad friends.  Why?  Because it's more likely that the bad friends will poison the Catholics (to one degree or another), than that the Catholic would convert those bad friends ... unless the Catholic were some saint, which were very of us are.

I already admitted that the Church CAN dispense from the Divine Office (nobody ever said otherwise), and even added above that the Church certainly did ... on individual case-by-case bases, depending on the nature of individual priests' missions.  Of course, if the North American martyrs were out there in the jungles, they would likely be dispensed, and then if they were unable to say the office for some reason (even without formal dispensation), oh, perhaps because they had their books confiscated and were being actively tortured, they are obviously dispensed ... of if a priest is sick, etc. ... the same types of reasons that a Catholic might miss Mass on Sunday.  But those are case-by-case situations.

Where the problem lie was with them attempting to get a blanket dispensation so that some guys could sit there looking through telescopes trying to prove Galileo right instead of saying their Divine Office.

I'm arguing against the prudence of that permission, which is neither protected by infallibility one way or the other ... nor did I ever claim that the Church COULD NOT dispense from the obligation.  I'm simply arguing that this dispensation was the sign of an "attitude" among the Jesuits which very quickly led to problems.

What I just posted speaks for itself on that point.

Which decision now ... Divine Office, or the one regarding heliocentrism?  Yes, obviously some decisions are made based on prudential judgments, and my very point regarding Divine Office is that prudential judgments are not protected as infallible, and many popes have made poor prudential judgments that were later understood to have been such (even by the Popes themselves) ... such as Pius XI regarding the Cristeros, and of course Pius XI and Pius XII filing to perform the consecration of Russia to Our Lady of Fatima, among many others.

So, the Jesuits agitating to be dispensed from the Divine Office demonstrated their prioritization of "activity" over prayer, which the Church had long know to be a recipe for disaster, which is why she had LONG insisted of the clergy saying the Divine Office.  That spirit manifested itself, and then bore fruits.  Now, another aspect of why the Jesuits became an unmitigated disaster is their immersion into secular study.  While there was some benefit to it ... the drawback was that they also imbibed the spirit of the world's academia, which especially in scientific matters, beginning with the time of Darwin and Lyell, had become openly hostile, anti-Christian, and atheistic.  At some point, instead of the Jesuits influencing broader academia, they were poisoned by it.

That's akin to what happened in Vatican II, where Roncalli claimed to believe that by opening the doors of the Church to the world, the world would be sanctified (he know this was not true, but that was his story and he stuck to it), but the fact is usually the other way around, where the pollution, some "smoke of Satan" entered the windows.  If you open the windows when you know that you live near a factory that's emitting toxic fog, you're not going to get fresh air coming in your windows.  Similarly, if a priest decides he's going to hang out at a brothel or among drug dealers, attempting to "convert" them, in most cases, they'll gradually become desensitized to the evils there, making them more susceptible to falling into them.  Catholics are instructed to avoid bad friends.  Why?  Because it's more likely that the bad friends will poison the Catholics (to one degree or another), than that the Catholic would convert those bad friends ... unless the Catholic were some saint, which were very of us are.

Suffice is to that the Church has huge dilemmas constantly to deal with, and you are not the one to judge whether which decision was decided involved the principle of lesser evils or double effect UNKNOWN to you. That is like you being a mindreader. You simply are way out of line criticizing a pope, against proper Catholic piety.

Suffice is to that the Church has huge dilemmas constantly to deal with, and you are not the one to judge whether which decision was decided involved the principle of lesser evils or double effect UNKNOWN to you. That is like you being a mindreader. You simply are way out of line criticizing a pope, against proper Catholic piety.

Ridiculous ... coming from the guy who claimed that it was OK for the Jesuits to ignore the papal suppression order based on their mindreading that the Pope didn't really mean to do it.

Your propose these absurdly erroneous principles such as that the Church cannot "err" even in the non-condemnation of error, implying that if the Church hasn't condemned an error, that must make it true.  This isn't the first time I've heard this same idiocy from the radical dogmatic SV types.

But you ignore the elephant in the room and this results in some kind of psychosis, which does in fact manifest itself in weird mental issues among dogmatic SVs ... where if you have Pope B contradicting Pope A, neither one of them is wrong.  They're both right, and to claim otherwise is "against proper Catholic piety".  So this leads to a requirement to adhere to contradictory propositions, and that results in psychological problems.

You absolutely refuse to address the problem ...

Pope A condemned non-geocentrism as "at least erroneous in faith".

Pope B said that non-geocentrism was permitted to be held and written about.

One of these is wrong.  But you refuse to address this elephant in the remove but instead sanctimoniously gaslight about "proper Catholic piety".

Unfortunately, the dogmatic SVs have in fact created the very strawman of papolatry that the anti-Catholics attack ... in overreacting to the grave errors of R&R.

Bottom line is that if you accept the teaching of Pope B above, then you're criticizing Pope A.  But if you accept the teaching of Pope A, you're criticizing Pope B.  You can't just plug your ears, deny reality, and then gaslight about how both of them must be right.

If you claim both are right, then explain how they're not in contradiction with one another ... something you refuse to do.  Instead you distract, create starwmen, and gaslight about "proper Catholic piety".

You've had numerous absolute degenerates holding papal office ... and by your criteria they cannot be criticized, but we're supposed to say, that "oh, yes, your Holiness ... your fornication and bearing of children out of wedlock are so wonderful".

Strangely, the Church canonized St. Catherine of Siena despite the fact that she continuously excoriated the Pope for having abandoned Rome for Avignon.

Ridiculous ... coming from the guy who claimed that it was OK for the Jesuits to ignore the papal suppression order based on their mindreading that the Pope didn't really mean to do it.

Your propose these absurdly erroneous principles such as that the Church cannot "err" even in the non-condemnation of error, implying that if the Church hasn't condemned an error, that must make it true.  This isn't the first time I've heard this same idiocy from the radical dogmatic SV types.

But you ignore the elephant in the room and this results in some kind of psychosis, which does in fact manifest itself in weird mental issues among dogmatic SVs ... where if you have Pope B contradicting Pope A, neither one of them is wrong.  They're both right, and to claim otherwise is "against proper Catholic piety".  So this leads to a requirement to adhere to contradictory propositions, and that results in psychological problems.

You absolutely refuse to address the problem ...

Pope A condemned non-geocentrism as "at least erroneous in faith".

Pope B said that non-geocentrism was permitted to be held and written about.

One of these is wrong.  But you refuse to address this elephant in the remove but instead sanctimoniously gaslight about "proper Catholic piety".

Unfortunately, the dogmatic SVs have in fact created the very strawman of papolatry that the anti-Catholics attack ... in overreacting to the grave errors of R&R.

Bottom line is that if you accept the teaching of Pope B above, then you're criticizing Pope A.  But if you accept the teaching of Pope A, you're criticizing Pope B.  You can't just plug your ears, deny reality, and then gaslight about how both of them must be right.

If you claim both are right, then explain how they're not in contradiction with one another ... something you refuse to do.  Instead you distract, create starwmen, and gaslight about "proper Catholic piety".

You've had numerous absolute degenerates holding papal office ... and by your criteria they cannot be criticized, but we're supposed to say, that "oh, yes, your Holiness ... your fornication and bearing of children out of wedlock are so wonderful".

Strangely, the Church canonized St. Catherine of Siena despite the fact that she continuously excoriated the Pope for having abandoned Rome for Avignon.

It just shows how out of touch you are on the subject when you bring up fornication by a pope. SO out of touch with the subject. You couldn't even address about the intrinsic/extrinsic factor. I'm not going to talk to you about the subject any more. Your voluminous content escalates and you go farther from the heart of the subject, and ignore very important points.