The decree against Galileo wasn't a teaching decree, it was a disciplinary decree. That is not the magisterium. Magisterium means "teaching".

mw2016, what it really comes down to, according your ilk, is - "anything is possible with God", so even if you cannot demonstrate or explain it, simply just claim that "IT IS SO" because anything is possible with God!

It REALLY comes down to the error that you either don't have the Faith, or youir Faith is almost gone, not to be able to see that the "HOLY" Catholic Church has allowed heliocentrism for generations in Her Catholic schools. A "holy" and "divine" Church would not have allowed that if it were harmful to the Faith.

You may not have more chances to consider this, so consider it well, and pray about it.

Wow, What a thread. First GlasG4e opens the theme of this thread stating Catholic belief, that God can do anything by way of a mere thought. When humans cannot grasp this and try to limit God to their intellect, then they do not understand their God.
He then speculates such speeds are physically possible with Quantum theory , i.e., Albert Einstein physics of sub-atomic particles, proposing that they behave in an electromagnetic fashion, a not unreasonable proposition. As far as Einstein is concerned, this speculation is as far as he went in quantum physics and had no input thereafter except to regret introducing the idea in the first place as it progressed in weird speculation.

By 1927, a physicist named Werner Heisenberg had taken the lead in Einstein’s non-visible area of quantum or atomic physics. In Heisenberg’s quantum world however, nothing is predictable whereas in Einstein’s everything is predictable. 

mn2016 says such speeds are not possible, not necessary because on a flat earth distances are so small such speeds are not necessary.

Bumphrery correctly replies saying Paganism is not always wrong, For example Aristotle got many things wrong but still the Church had to forbid other pagan ideas. This occurred in 1277AD, when Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris banned 219 pagan propositions (40 theological and 179 philosophical) from the University at Sorbonne, the leading school of learning at the time. 

Glasg4e then says correctly that FLATEARTHISM is taking over this subject of geocentrism. You cannot mention Geo before Flat earthers invade.

Student of Q1 suggests a spinning earth geocentrism as a possibility. Sorry Student, Scripture says no it does not. Its all or heresy.

Bumphry repeats his opinion that the Church couldn't have condemned heliocentrism because the Church has allowed Catholics to believe it since 1835 at least.

Sorry Bump, but the Church did condemn it as heresy. The records are there in the Church's archives, now out in the public domain. In 1633 and again in 1820, it was acknowledged that the 1616 decree was an irreversible papal decree. You are in direct opposition to the Church by denying this. 

The Church also condemned MODERNISM yet for 100 years it is rampant in the Church. Perhaps the greatest scandal of all Church history is the story of how churchmen allowed heliocentrism loose into the womb of the Church. Briefly, they said the heretical heliocentrism of Galileo was still heresy, but the 'heliocentrism of modern astronomers' was not. That is how desperate churchmen got when they lost FAITH and succuмbed to HUMAN REASON, That is MODERNISM personified.

Bumphrery correctly replies saying Paganism is not always wrong

I doubt you are Catholic, because you sure have a mindframe of a disgruntled waysider.

No, I didn't say Paganism is not always wrong. I said reasoning is not part of paganism. Duh.

Bumphry repeats his opinion that the Church couldn't have condemned heliocentrism because the Church has allowed Catholics to believe it since 1835 at least.

Sorry Bump, but the Church did condemn it as heresy. The records are there in the Church's archives, now out in the public domain. In 1633 and again in 1820, it was acknowledged that the 1616 decree was an irreversible papal decree. You are in direct opposition to the Church by denying this.

Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between the magisterium and disciplinary decree.

I would guess you would doubt that most of us are Catholics. If I remember correctly, you condemned Rita for considering non-sedevacantists Catholic and having communion with them and when I pointed out that the CMRI does the same you said they should not. So you would refuse communion with most of us being that this is a forum for una-cuм SSPX resistance supporters.

You just guessed wrongly.

You also don't remember correctly. I didn't "condemn" anyone. Where did you get that from?

I have expressed verbatim that non-sedevacantists can be "Catholic", so where did you get the contrary from?

I clearly said that we must avoid that which is a danger, even if it comes from a Catholic. This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows a parent keeps her children from playing with other Catholic children if they have a dirty mouth.

Matto, you got it all wrong, and you should carefully reflect why you did, because you just expressed falsehood about me and my position. Think carefully about why.

You condemned her as a tradcuмenist, or something or other, and said she was compromising the faith. And you showed your disagreement with the position of the CMRI allowing her members to attend una-cuм masses. So I guess you consider una-cuм traditional Catholics to be possibly Catholic but dangerous, so you avoid communion with them?

Saying someone is wrong or mistaken, doesn't mean I "condemn" them, or do you "condemn" everyone you say has an error? Please stop being biased.

Yes, any danger morally or to our faith, must be avoided. Do you deny that moral principle?

There are some times where one can risk some danger, depending upon the balance to our need and ability. I say the CMRI is lax in their permitting exposure to danger to Faith. That is their problem.

So you consider una-cuм masses to be a danger to the faith then? Then what are you doing here? By posting here and interacting with us you are willingly entering an occasion of sin if una-cuм trads are really dangerous to the faith. You are not even a priest yet you expose yourself to such temptations. If I thought about sedevacantists the way you seem to think about una-cuм trads I would not hang out at Te Deum.

No, I don't consider una-cuм Masses to be a danger intrinsically. However, they are a danger extrinsically to the average Catholic. That extrinsic danger is not present here for me on this forum. If you would like to spar with me about what you are doing here reading sedevacantist material when you cannot handle it, just ask me.

I do not consider sedevacantism to be a danger to the faith

Cool. Then why be so inimical towards sedevacantists if there is no danger?