When a book is removed from the Index that indicates that it is permitted at that point.  That is part of the "moral force" of the Index.  
If books were eternally forbidden once they had been put on the Index, what would be the point of removing them?

The Index became an albatross and was a point of contention by the enemies of the Church.  Basically the Pope was pressured.  Why any Pope would "remove" anything from the Index is anyone's guess, but more importantly, it must be addressed that the Pope could only remove things once they had been corrected.  That never happened, yet he unbound the consciences of men in the matter.  So, what do we do with that?  I guess there's a little more hope for those who cannot understand that an indoctrination was foisted on them and God permitted this for their sake.  Kind of like Moses permitting divorce for a time. However, Scripture tells us that Moses permitted it because it was out of the hardness of their hearts.  IMHO we ought to respect tradition and refuse the option that resulted from a modernization of the Church and her prelates.  There is no need to find ourselves pining over a dead subject like heliocentrism.  It is a retarded pagan doctrine that continues to usher in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  Ain't nobody got time for that.   

So the Index has "moral force" when a book you disapprove of is put on it, but when the book is removed you want to explain it away?

The scientific understanding of heliocentrism had changed by the time the books were removed from the Index.  Most likely that is why the Pope had it done, even without the corrections being added to the books.

At any rate, there are no grounds for claiming that Catholics may not believe heliocentrism.

No.  I believe it maintains its moral force. I merely hypothesized how we might understand what happened.  I don't really know.  But it doesn't matter if the scientific understanding changed. We know now that was based on a lie. Further, the Church cannot change.  The model is condemned even if the Index doesn't bind people per se.  That doesn't mean they are not bound to get to the bottom of what happened when dealing with the problem, something many people simply don't do because it doesn't present itself.  Those people may be freed of guilt, it seems, always depending on their own sanctity obviously.  However, those who poke their nose into this and ask questions or who find themselves faced with it, should accept the Church's teachings because She bothered to condemn it.  Its really quite simple.  

Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes.  She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs. 
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?

Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes.  She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?

Par for the course...though a rude and utterly untrue assessment. I'm a cradle Catholic faithful to tradition, proven by my loyalty to the teachings of the Fathers, to Scripture and the Church at great inconvenience to myself for the derision shown me from Catholics who do not understand.

Just earlier today you yourself used the phrase "problems associated with the globe earth theory, regarding its promotion of secular humanism". (Post #156 of this thread)

This is clearly implies that Catholics may not hold that the earth is a globe because to do so promotes an erroneous, anti-Catholic belief system.  You are implying that the only position that Catholics may hold without sinning is that the earth is flat.  You fall short of explicitly claiming that flat earth is a Church dogma, but your posts are full of comments that imply it is the only licit position for Catholics.  This was just one example.

If you insist on reading into my silence the opposite of what I have told you I actually think, I cannot stop you.  

How could I imply it as a Dogma, when I said nothing relating to the Catholic Church at all in that sentence? 

Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes.  She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?

I rarely visit Suscipe Domine, but I'm not surprised that she would say that. She has a grudge against those CATHOLICS who believe in a flat earth.

If only she would take the time to actually look into the flat earth, without any pre-conceived anti-flat earth ideas from her husband or whoever, then she might find that FE makes sense.

Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes.  She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?

I am quoting my entire SD post on the subject so that everyone may judge for himself whether Smedley has fairly characterized it:

Quote from: Livenotonevil on November 30, 2017, 09:59:41 AM

Quote

Was there a prominent theological opinion supported by the Bible that the Earth was flat?

I recently had a debate with the Cathinfo Flatearthers  (perhaps half a dozen people - most there disagree with them) about the historical and theological aspects of the question. 

The standard understanding is that many of the Church Fathers believed  in a flat earth but over time a consensus developed among Catholics that the earth is spherical. By the time universities began being established in the Medieval period, virtually everyone accepted the sphere shape and this is what was taught. It is generally recognized that St Thomas Aquinas and St Albert the Great believed the earth is a globe. 

The Flatearthers I talked to denied the accepted view and claimed that flat earth is the Catholic position taught by Scripture and the Fathers and held until the Reformation introduced it's errors. 

They seemed to think they were better Catholics for believing in flat earth and one even referred to belief in a globe earth as heresy. 

They tried to prove their position by using quotes from Scripture and the Fathers. When shown a papal encyclical which explicitly stated that these should not be used to determine natural science, they still clung to their view that they were the ones holding the real Catholic position. 

I do not know much about science but in the fields I do know about I could see that these people were wilfully ignorant and they rejected Church teaching on Scriptural exegesis. If anyone wishes to see the thread it is here - https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15386.135