First your last question. As far as I have found, the absurd and false philosophically part was discussed in the 1741 and 1820 docuмents and used to undermine the heresy.
...
the 1741 docuмents seeking permission to reprint Galileo's Dialogue; the 1756 new Index that dropped the 1640 general prohibition; and finally the 1820 docuмents that removed the 5 remaining books on the Index.

Now Stanley, what you are reading on this post has NEVER been presented in 6,000 books on the Galileo case, or in many millions of journals, articles and websites.

From the 1820 docuмent: "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."

Are you [cassini] suggesting the Catholic Church has failed in its obligations for centuries, having explicitly allowed Catholics to hold things you believe contrary to the faith and condemned by the Church?

This would seem contrary to indefectibility and appear difficult to reconcile with the promises of Christ.

As for my opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is; that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions. For space denotes, in terms of possibility, an order of thing s which exist at the same time, considered as existing together; without enquiring into their manner of existing. And when many things are seen together, one perceives that order of things among themselves.

I have many demonstrations, to confute the fancy of those who take space to be a substance, or at least an absolute being. But I shall only use, at the present, one demonstration, which the author here gives me occasion to insist upon. I say then, that if space was an absolute being, there would something happen, for which it would be impossible there should be a sufficient reason. Which is against my axiom. And I prove it thus. Space is something absolutely uniform; and, without the things placed in it, one point of space does not absolutely differ in any respect whatsoever from another point of space.  Now from hence it follows, (supposing space to be something in itself, besides the order of bodies among themselves,) that ’tis impossible there should be a reason, why God, preserving the same situations of bodies among themselves, should have placed them in space after one certain particular manner, and not otherwise; why every thing was not placed quite contrary way, for instance, by changing East into West. But if space is nothing else, but that order or relation; and is nothing at all without bodies, but the possibility of placing them; then those two states, the one such as it now is, the other supposed to be the quite contrary way, would not at all differ from one another. Their difference therefore is only to be found in our chimerical supposition of the reality of space in itself. But in truth the one would exactly be the same thing as the other, they being absolutely indiscernible; and consequently there is no room to enquire after a reason of the preference of the one to the other.

I know they are, because the 1633 condemnations obviously are infallible. And even if the act of the 1633 condemnations was not an infallible act, the condemnations still would be true.

Quote from: Struthio

I know they [both propositions (moving earth and resting sun)] are [absurd and false philosophically], because the 1633 condemnations obviously are infallible. And even if the act of the 1633 condemnations was not an infallible act, the condemnations still would be true.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Thank you. QED. Whew, that was difficult

Please prove that said propositions (earth is moving and sun is resting) are not absurd and false philosophically but rather reasonable and true (philosophically).