CathInfo.com

.
2. I never said anything about Heliocentrism.  I said Geocentrism is NOT a matter of Faith.  Pope Pius VII decree of 1822 says the same.  If the Church Fathers believed that bloodletting cures headaches is that a matter of Faith?  Scripture's proof of Geocentrism is nonexistent. Scripture is written in the language of the day.  That's what Pope Leo XIII said in "Providentissimus Deus".  Do you realize that if you are standing on Mars, the Sun will appear to COME UP in the morning and GO DOWN in the evening.  So then Mars must be the center of the universe [not a good measure for which planet is the center of the universe, because they all rotate, except for Mercury].

I look forward to your next "blah, blah, blah", repetition of all the lies you keep publishing.

It is most difficult to debate with people who do not seem to be able to understand the history of that infamous U-turn, people who add insults to their posts, and in normal circuмstances should not deserve replies to such posts. But many others are reading these posts and for them it is always worth answering confusing posts as above.

The 1616 decree is a matter of Faith. This was held by all, especially Pope Urban VII who had it recorded in the 1633 trial of Galileo. No pope in history has ever said, inferred or suggested it was not a matter of faith. Such was their concern in 1820 that it was a matter of faith they actuially had to invent a heliocentrism they said was NOT the heliocentrism of 1616. Why do this if it was not of faith? Just read the decrees of 1820

1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

Now why do you think the CONDITIONAL HELIOCENTRISM is in both decrees? Because it allows a non-heretical heliocentrism, or so they thought.


Human beings created by God were placed on Earth. For mankind then, it is what we see that God intended. we see and experience a geocentric universe. What one would experience on Mars is not the same and relevant only to Martians Pope Francis wants to baptise.

4. They believe in telescopes, a serious problem for Geocentrism.  The ASTRONOMY class has nothing to do with Darwin and his "evolution".  It's more about what can be observed with telescopes.  Ever heard of Stellar Paralax.  It cannot be observed without
telescopes.  It can be observed with good telescopes, which actually disproves Geocentrism.  Sorry.
 
I look forward to your next "blah, blah, blah", repetition of all the lies you keep publishing.

Ah, at last we are down to astronomy. It is obvious to me Apollo you know as much about this subject as you do about Church teaching that is binding and Vatican I that says:
For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine,

But they did this when inventing a non-heretical heliocentrism while at the same time hiding the heretical heliocentrism.

The Heliocentrism allowed into the Church's womb in 1835 was placing human reasoning over divine revelation. If it worked with cosmology, then why not with an atheistic version of origins. And history records this is EXACTLY what happened. Long ages, evolution and Pius XII's Big Bang creation in 1952, and now Fr Robinson's latest book of heresies. Books have been written on this evolution of 'science' into Scripture and doctrine, including the following:

‘Within two centuries…the world was led into a new realm of thought in which an evolution theory of the visible universe was sure to be rapidly developed. For there came, one after the other, five of the greatest men our race has produced, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, and when their work was done the old theological conception of the universe was gone.… the Almighty enthroned upon “the circle of the heavens,” and with his own hands, or with angels as his agents, keeping sun, moon, and planets in motion for the benefit of the Earth, opening and closing the “windows of heaven,”… all this had disappeared. These five men had given a new divine revelation to the world; and through the last, Newton, had come a vast new conception, destined to be fatal to the old theory of creation, for he had shown throughout the universe, in place of almighty caprice, all-pervading law… The bitter opposition of theology to the first four of these men is well known; but the fact is not so widely known that Newton, in spite of his deeply religious spirit, was also strongly opposed. It was vigorously urged against him that by his statement of the law of gravitation he “took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism,” and that he “substituted gravitation for Providence.” But more than this, these men gave a new basis for the theory of evolution as distinguished from the theory of creation…. By the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory of creation – though still preached everywhere as a matter of form – was clearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost.’--- Andrew White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, New York, Appleton, 1870 and updated 1896,p. 15

Now when one reads NONSENSE like 'Ever heard of stellar parallax' proving heliocentrism. My God Apollo, is that the best you can rely on to retain your heresy? If stellar parallax proves heliocentrtism then modern cosmology after Einstein is full of idiots you ought to speak to.

 Material heresy does not result in punishment.

Unless, of course, their ignorance was of a culpable nature in which case God may choose to punish them in this world and or the next.