Article <soplljdpvuhjjg5e69kvq2ss2taju8h7vc@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<soplljdpvuhjjg5e69kvq2ss2taju8h7vc@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder2.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:03:07 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 183
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <soplljdpvuhjjg5e69kvq2ss2taju8h7vc@4ax.com>
References: <04lukj5ekihbu6j3r8ntuhblrqjdvpjkec@4ax.com> <vio1op$d5kc$1@dont-email.me> <k601ljlqd45og7nbcqqhaak5jago431j2t@4ax.com> <viqpip$15ssj$1@dont-email.me> <h248ljhr4e20lqkkqgl9kdpq95d6id33aa@4ax.com> <vj259m$38mpe$2@dont-email.me> <a93blj1hkdbuqcikt03lnravufloj3qol8@4ax.com> <vj4ofo$3uroq$1@dont-email.me> <ae1elj1aqlctpvuls9kekqo7ldir21ram7@4ax.com> <vj7ihd$ic2c$1@dont-email.me> <hhrfljhbhokk8mmgjcoiirsskeclpp47cc@4ax.com> <vj9sth$127ja$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="90532"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P64eTMWVkm4M1D75c++xTAtp7sE=
Bytes: 12517

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:14:25 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/10/2024 1:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
>> Church documents.
>> 
>> Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
>> extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
>> agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
>> trumped-up charge as I described it.
>> 
>> 
>> Point of Order:
>> ============
>> You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
>> changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
>> editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic  Encyclopedia
>> exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
>> containing the Galileo article published in 1907.
>> 
>
>You just snipped it all out and ran.  What I put up supported the source 
>that is claimed to be Salza. 

That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
controversy".

That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
skills in your excellent  scientific posts so it has to be your
beliefs about  this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
don't let you absorb anything contradictory.




> Your own source that you put up to 
>Burkhard and not to me last time seems to have changed to support Salza. 
>  The Anti geocentric catholic site that I put up supports Salza.  They 
>are just arguing that Galileo was not guilty of the heresy that he faced 
>in 1616, and to do that they have to claim that the 1616 affair was only 
>cited in 1633.  This is a stupid claim because the alternate charge that 
>Galileo was supposed to have faced was that he broke his oath that he 
>gave in that 1616 incident.  If the 1633 court did not "adopt" the 1616 
>findings why would Galileo be guilty of violating his oath concerning 
>the charge of heresy?
>
>You can go back to the material that you snipped out and ran from in 
>order to get all the links and previous quotes.
>
>The sentencing of Galileo claims heresy, it defines the heresy that 
>Galileo is charged with supporting, and it claims that Galileo is 
>guilty.  The claims that this has been misinterpreted seems to be very 
>wrong.  Even the site that claims that catholics like Salza are wrong 
>about the Galileo incident admits that Galileo faced a formal heresy 
>charge by the Inquisition in 1616.
>
>They support Salza, and so does the site that you previously put up in 
>2020.  The conclave in Trent set heliocentrism to be a heresy in 1541. 

No it didn't mention anything at all about heliocentrism; what you
have is Salza quoting the decree correctly (contradictory to what you
previously claimed) and then trying to stretch it to *indirectly*
include heliocentrism. All explained to you above but you choose to
just keep ignoring it.


>This is what Bruno faced and was likely charged with.  It was not a 
>formal heresy at the time that Bruno was charged with it, probably 
>because the heresy could only be inferred from the Trent doctrine and 
>had not been claimed to be a formal heresy.  


Ah yes, that was when you accepted that Bruno was never charged with
heliocentrism but maintained that he was found guilty of it anyway,
lol.

>This changed after Bruno as 
>the church became more firmly against the heliocentric heresy, and by 
>1616 when Galileo first faced the charge it was a formal heresy.  Even 
>the catholic site that claims that catholic geocentrists are wrong about 
>Galileo admit that heliocentrism was a formal heresy by 1616 and that 
>Copernican writings had been banned in the 1616 Index.
>
>Your old reference now admits that it was a heresy in 1616, and 
>continues to call it a heresy in 1633 Galileo incident.
>
>The situation had not changed by 1633.  It looks like the reason that 
>the Galileo affair has been obfuscated and denied by catholics seems to 
>be due to the fear that it means that Papal infallibility would be 
>questioned.  That seems stupid because that should have been out the 
>window a millennia ago.  The Pope was involved in 1633, not only that, 
>but the Pope made sure that the judgement was disseminated throughout 
>the world and those documents named heliocentrism as a heresy.  The 
>appology in 1995 would indicate that the Pope was wrong.  Church 
>scholars were already worried about this issue before the official 
>appology, and were doing somersaults trying to reconcile what happened. 
>Even the anti geocentric catholic site admits what the Pope did and that 
>he wanted Heliocentrism quashed after the ruling, but claims that it was 
>not an official Papal act when he had the church disseminate the 
>proceedings and rulings.
>
>You seem to be the one that is the one that needs to demonstrate that 
>Galileo's sentencing should not be taken at face value when even the 
>stupid claim that he was actually found guilty with breaking his oath in 
>regards to the heresy means that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.
>
>https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
>QUOTE:
>We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by 
>reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, 
>have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently 
>suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the 
>doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine 
>Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move 
>from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the 
>world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it 
>has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and 
>that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties 
>imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, 
>general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are 
>content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart 
>and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us] 
>the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy 
>contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be 
>prescribed by us for you.
>END QUOTE:
>
>They "vehemently" suspect Galileo of heresy.  They define the heresy, 
>and they claim that Galileo is guilty.
>
>The link is to a source claiming that the presumed Salza source is wrong 
>about Galileo, but they admit that he is correct about heliocentrism 
>being a formal heresy by 1616.  

You still on about the site that site that says "that Copernicanism
had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most
persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"?

BTW, leaving aside the rather significant fact that the site actually
contradicts you, what is so special about its author David Palm; what
qualifications does he have that you  consider his opinions so
important?

>This source claims that the 1616 
>Inquisition judgement was not "adopted" by the 1633 court, but that 
>seems stupid because the alternate charge that they claim Galileo was 
>found guilty of was breaking his oath that he had to make in 1616 to the 
>Inquisition.
>
>The Concil of Trent did make heliocentrism into a heresy.  Your site, 
>Salza, and the anti-Salza catholic site agree with this.  Bruno faced 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========