First of all, what do Protestantism and Copernicus have to do with each other? You should know well that Protestants are some of the staunchest defenders of the young-earth idea, which scientists do not tend to support.
Now again, the problem is that you’re putting total faith in something that IS NOT DOGMA. Popular belief does no make something worthy of staunch support despite all evidence to the contrary unless the Church makes it official. For example, one may support the idea that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, but one should not treat it as a matter of faith vs. any counterarguments that may appear. It is an issue that the Church has not spoken on, and so therefore it should not be supported in the face of all evidence.
Also, stop accusing everyone of heresy. There is no heresy where their is no set dogma. Heliocentrists can no more be heretics than I could be for denying the mediatrix of all things. Leave it be. So what if some Church Fathers interpreted it as such? They are not infallible.
Science will not contradict faith. Science is merely the use of reason to try to understand the physical world. Nothing more, nothing less. God will not speak incorrectly about creation through the Church, and so we will never have something that contradicts science. Please stop acting like science somehow tries to oppose faith. It does not. Science will never contradict the descent of everyone from Adam and Eve as you suggest it might. It’s not possible.
Finally, what parts of scripture say that geocentrism is correct? The passage from Joshua is rather weak, so I hope you’re not referring to that.
**‘What do Protestantism and Copernicus [Copernicanism rather] have to do with each other?’ **
The personal interpretation of Scripture contrary to the Council of Trent.
April 8, 1546:
‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ — (Denzinger - 786)
Are you aware that Galileo was put on trial for heresy. Why do you think the Church put Galileo on trial? What did the Church charge him with if not heresy which is an opinion contrary to a dogma one that has been defined and declared as such? The Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals, but one could think so reading the denial posts that prevent anyone even thinking about it.
Again I emphasise, of course you can argue that the heresy is not really a heresy, for the simple reason that popes were taken in by the so-called proofs. How could churchmen continue to defend a defined heresy when they thought/think it has been falsified? Now that the cat is out of the bag and science knows there never was any such proof, churchmen cannot go back to tradition without the world knowing how they all lost faith in the Church’s indefectibility. Now you and others can argue what you like, but in truth the Church spoke and that is it. Nor will I and others bow once again to your Newtonianism and give it precedence over the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and the three papal decrees that defined it as formal heresy.
’So what if some Church Fathers interpreted it as such? They are not infallible.’
Individual opinions of the Fathers are not infallible, true, but the unanimous opinion of the Fathers is considered infallible.
Of course science will not contradict faith. Do you think we would defend an interpretation of scripture contrary to scientific proof? But when the empirical method is incapable of proving something then theology takes precedence over human reasoning. Now will you abide by your own argument - that science will not contradict faith. You have your faith, so why do you say the truth it states is not the reality.
’Finally, what parts of scripture say that geocentrism is correct?'
Let me quote Cardinal Robert Bellarmine on that:
I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.
