I am not referring to the 1616 decree. The 1616 decree basically says "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture". The 1633 verdict is the one that goes further, that not only condemns the ideas of a resting sun and a moving earth as contrary to Holy Scripture, heretic, or erroneous, but also both as "absurd and false philosophically".

My point is: Those rejecting the condemnation of the 1633 propositions are not only heretics (or not Christians at all), they are also fools, imbeciles, dorks. That's what Pope Urban VIII and the Holy Inquisition propose in A.D. 1633.

Since I have a duty to love my neighbour, even if they're not Christian, I would like to be able to explain them why they are up a blind alley.
------------------------------------------------------------

The condemned propositions of 1633 are condemned by Pope Urban VIII and the Holy Inquisition. Pope Urban VIII and the Holy Inquisition are assisted by the Holy Ghost. Same situation as in the case of the condemnation of the propositions of Martin Luther.

If anyone says that it is not absurd and philosophically false to assert that the earth is moving, he contradicts defined Church teaching, is either an heretic or erring, and is in any case an idiot or a clown.

Yes, in this case the Church is teaching (among other things) against certain pseudo-philosophical and/or pseudo-scientific ideas. Any philosophy or science which approves the proposition "the earth is moving", is wrong.

Stanley, it is most difficult debating the Galileo case with someone who gets the facts wrong.


(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 [denies 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 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.”

It was the above that was confirmed by Pope Urban VIII in 1633. It went no further than the decision of 1616.

Since I have a duty to love my neighbour, even if they're not Christian, I would like to be able to explain them why they are up a blind alley.

Tell them God told us.  

.
It's not the place of Scripture to teach what we can observe firsthand. 
Scripture does not have anything to say about the earth being "flat" or what the shape of the moon is for that matter.
.
The Fathers of the Church do not teach the shape of the earth, nor that it's "flat."
.
This forum is not a "flat" earth forum. 
.
You guys just don't get it. Are you dense? Or just retarded? 

This is a geocentric flat earth forum and not a geocentric globe forum. Any attempt to promote aspects of heliocentrism like the globe don't belong here since the models are mutually exclusive. Excellent post happenby.

The subject of this thread is about stellar aberration, not flat-earth aberration.

Quote from: Holy Inquisition under Urban VIII

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

Well, you have several problems. This is not the full text, but only a part. Context matters.

In my view it's you who has problems. You are confronted with the condemnation of two propositions and seem to not be able to understand very simple statements. Which part is not unequivocally clear? Do you not understand what "the Sun" or what "the Earth" means? Or do you have a problem with "expressly contrary to Holy Scripture"? Or do you not understand "absurd" or "false philosophically" or "formally heretical"?

Maybe you have got no idea what "move" or "immovable" means.

Or you think that the full text would explain that "the Sun" here does not signify what generally is understood to be "the Sun"?


Stanley N, your own comment makes you look half-witted. Don't you see how pale you look in the light of your own comment? It's not only the Holy Office of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ headed by Pope Urban VIII which declares that the idea of the earth-movers is absurd and false philosophically, no, you present yourself as half-witted. Look: the text of the Holy Office is easy to understand and the full text doesn't add anything to the clear meaning. I have provided a link to the full text in my post above and you obviously didn't even mind to click it and read. If you had read it, you wouldn't utter such nonsense like you did.

I am happy to see that you're very upset. Now you have to calm down and read again what the Holy Office said. Note that not I, not Struthio says that you're half-witted. It is the Holy Inquisition which says it. Their langugage is more courtly though, spelling it out as "absurd and false philosophically", but down here in my spheres (not discs) we call it "half-witted".

Stanley, it is most difficult debating the Galileo case with someone who gets the facts wrong.

On February 24^th 1616, Pope Paul V as Prefect of the Holy Office confirmed the following:

(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 [denies 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 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.”

It was the above that was confirmed by Pope Urban VIII in 1633. It went no further than the decision of 1616.

No, cassini. Not I, rather you got the facts wrong. After Stanley N asked, I posted two links to the 1616 decree and to the 1633 verdict. What you quote here is neither the 1616 decree nor the 1633 verdict. It is some mixture of a comment and quotes from the 1633 verdict. Please be so kind and retract your statement that I got the facts wrong. Or post a link or the full text of the 1616 decree. In the meantime I insist, that the 1616 decree does not say "philosophically absurd" as can be verified in what I linked above. Feel free to prove the contrary.

Well, you have several problems. This is not the full text, but only a part. Context matters.

In my view it's you who has problems. You are confronted with the condemnation of two propositions 

You're the one who claims to present the Church's teachings, yet have soundly failed to demonstrate that the Church teaches anything of which you claim.
Or do you agree with happenby's Scripture passages as a condemnation of geocentrism?

OK Sruthio, for clarification if I got things wrong, let me present the progress of the condemnations of a fixed sun interpretation of Scripture.

On the nineteenth of February 1616, under orders of Pope Paul V, eleven chosen theologian-qualifiers of the Supreme Inquisition also known as the Holy Office, set up to combat heresy at the highest level recall, were given the following two propositions for their consideration:

(1): That the sun is in the centre of the world, and is totally immovable as for locomotion. (2): That the Earth is neither in the centre of the world nor immovable, but moves as a whole and in daily motion.        

Unfortunately there are no records or details as to how the qualifiers of the Inquisition reached their decisions.

The Vatican records tell us that on Wednesday, February 24th 1616, in virtue of the Pope’s order, the Index disclosed the outcome of its investigation in the following manner:
 
 (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, 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 the Fathers and theologians.”
 (2) The second proposition, “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
 
 The following day, the 25th Feb 1616, Pope Paul V approved these conclusions as Prefect of the Holy Office and told Bellarmine to tell Galileo of the above decision.

 On the 5th March 1616 then, the Congregation of the Index published the following condemnation, under orders from Pope Paul V:

  ‘Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the Earth and the immobility of the sun, — which Nicolas Copernicus in his work De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium, and Didacus a Stunica [another heliocentrist] in his commentary on Job, teach, is being promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a cer­tain Carmelite father,  … therefore, lest an opinion of this kind insinuate itself further to the destruction of Catholic truth, this Congregation has decreed that the said books be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all.’

When one refers to the 1616 decree one includes the findings announced on Feb. 24th, 1616 and its publication by the Index on March 5th in the above form. the latter, by the way, with its 'altogether opposed to the divine Scripture' is exactly the same as No 1 of Feb 24th, and not a weatered down version of it as many heliocentric apologists tried to make it.

The following year, on 28 February 1619, the Congregation of the Index, after acquiring and reading Kepler’s book Epitome of Copernican Astronomy published in 1618, rebuked and banned it. There were also condemnations and bans on books by Diego de Zúñiga, and Paolo Antonio Foscarini, including proscriptions on ‘all books that teach the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the sun.’ Following this, in 1620, a monitum was issued by the Congregation of the Index laying out certain ‘corrections’ that were required in Copernicus’s De revolutionibus before it could receive an imprimatur.

Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Paul V died in 1621. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII, at Galileo's trial, clarified that the 1616 condemnation (called the 1616 decree) was absolute, just as the Holy Office of Pope Paul V confirmed.

In 1820, Olivieri of the Holy Office agreed the 1616 decree(s) were infallible in the following way:

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved.’

Thank you cassini. I wasn't aware of the content of these Vatican records. So here we have the solution to the question about "straight facts".

My assumption is that the 1616 decree and the 1633 verdict are relevant, while all other records and docuмents known to historians are no relevant sources of Church teaching. They may illuminate circuмstances, but what's relevant are the 1616 decree and the 1633 verdict, which were published then. Do you agree with that? Or are there more doctrinally relevant docuмents?

Based on this assumption, that only the 1616 decree and the 1633 verdict are docuмents which were published all over the world, I was insisting that the qualification "absurd and false philosophically" was published first in 1633. It isn't found in the 1616 decree, and wasn't proposed to the whole Church before 1633. Can you confirm this?