roscoe knows this one?



The outside of the record where the song starts goes around the middle or the center where the song ends. Things resolve to a center.

For heliocentrism to work, the Earth has to spin at different speeds along all its latitudes to account for the universal 24 hour day. Yet the Earth is a simple body and a sphere, as simple as being the only one that it is, and it cannot spin at many different speeds at the same time. Therefore, heliocentrism is not possible, and some things are impossible even for God..

E rev around S

Cassini is a LIAR as I have posted numerous times that S is in motion,...

First of all let us see what Pope Paul V, as Prefect of the Holy Office and the only authority that could approve and order decrees of the Holy Office, put out in 1616 for all Catholics to obey:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Now roscoe, your ‘E rev around S’ asserts the Earth revolves around the sun. This is ‘erroneous to the Catholic faith’ for starters, and by any definition the heresy as defined. 

Now what kind of movement of the sun was it heresy to deny?  The movement ‘as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages,’ So, let us see one of those passages:

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the Earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits..” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
           
So, here the Bible reveals the Sun revolves around the Earth, not roscoe’s E rev around a moving S.

So then, roscoe, when you tell readers of CIF that ‘Cassini is a liar as I have posted numerous times that S is in motion,’ what motion of the sun do you think will make me a liar and your quip not heresy? It certainly isn’t the sun’s rotation as that was known by all in 1616. So again roscoe, what movement of the sun renders you not guilty of the above quoted heresy with your constant ‘S rev around S?’

 

First of all let us see what Pope Paul V, as Prefect of the Holy Office and the only authority that could approve and order decrees of the Holy Office, put out in 1616 for all Catholics to obey:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Now roscoe, your ‘E rev around S’ asserts the Earth revolves around the sun. This is ‘erroneous to the Catholic faith’ for starters, and by any definition the heresy as defined.

Now what kind of movement of the sun was it heresy to deny?  The movement ‘as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages,’ So, let us see one of those passages:

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the Earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits..” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
           
So, here the Bible reveals the Sun revolves around the Earth, not roscoe’s E rev around a moving S.

So then, roscoe, when you tell readers of CIF that ‘Cassini is a liar as I have posted numerous times that S is in motion,’ what motion of the sun do you think will make me a liar and your quip not heresy? It certainly isn’t the sun’s rotation as that was known by all in 1616. So again roscoe, what movement of the sun renders you not guilty of the above quoted heresy with your constant ‘S rev around S?’

roscoe is confirmed a heretic 

Here is an analysis of the the Church's teaching on the subject throughout history, and what is considered heretical. https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/geocentrism-heliocentrism-galileo/  I found it a good read, but lengthy with the extra BOD stuff added in.

I am not at all surprised to see Dimonds( Diamonds?)-- libelers of Popes Leo XIII, Pius XII & Card Rampolla-- pushing a dogmatic Geo-centrism...

What this has to do w/ 'bod' is 

No Roscoe, the Dimonds are on your side, they try to show that the 1616 decree and the confirmation of its authority by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 and by the Holy Office in 1820 meant nothing by way of Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical on Dante In Praeclara Summorum.
First a quote from this encyclical:

'If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.'

The Dimonds say:
Here we see Pope Benedict XV, in a 1921 encyclical, declare that “this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought.”  In all the discussions of the issue with which I’m familiar, I’ve never seen the above quotation from Pope Benedict XV brought forward.  People such as John Daly, Solange Hertz, Paula Haigh, etc., who have spent much time on this issue, were obviously unaware of this quotation.

There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.

If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical.  It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.

My answer to this is:
It has been asserted by certain men, like the Dimond brothers, that the above encyclical shows the 1616 edict was not an irreversible (infallible) decree because Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. The Pope was of course referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity of his time as the progress of science that held ‘the world rested on no sure foundation.’ In other words, a geocentric universe was still as viable as a heliocentric one. Moreover, the Ptolemaic system of the universe was the universe of Dante, and yes, the Pope was right about it no longer being the true system. Given the fact that in his time geocentrism was still considered falsified by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say the Earth ‘is not at the centre.’ But he did not, nor that the sun does not orbit the Earth, leaving the 1616 decree as defined and declared. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the physical non-violent heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ insisted on by the Holy Office from 1820.

the science of cosmology now admits that Bradley’s 1726 find of stellar aberration, Bessell’s 1838 find of stellar parallax, and Foucault’s 1851 pendulum proved nothing as a geocentric universe can explain all of the above.

For me, I was convinced about geocentrism until I learned about stellar parallax. I think a lot of the other data points towards geocentrism except that, and I have never heard any response to it. In Sungenis's video, his explanation was that the whole universe is moving in a toroidal orbit around the earth (just going from memory here). This makes no sense because the whole universe isn't able to go anywhere -- by definition, there's nowhere for it to go!