Galileo

[cassini]

Under Saint Malachy’s prophesies in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they have the following:

Nicolaus Copernicus, who was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, spent his youth in Kraków, Poland. The heliocentric model of the universe was described as heretical by Catholic Church during the early 17th century, when the Copernican system was espoused by Galileo Galilei. This position was reversed in 1992 by Pope John Paul II, who also spent his youth in Kraków, Poland, in his apology to Galileo, 450 years after Copernicus published De revolutionibus and 360 years after Galileo’s trial. Thus, the “Toil of the Sun” may have referenced the Church’s acceptance of heliocentricity.

 

[cassini]

Wikipedia under Galileo affair.

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”; while the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and … in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”

Universe today:
Galileo Returns to the Vatican 14 Mar 2008 … At his trial, Galileo argued that his heliocentric beliefs and … defined and declared to be FORMAL HERESY – sanction a statue of Galileo …

Forum on Public Policy
'In early 1616 the Church prepared to issue a decree condemning the heliocentric theory
as contrary to Scripture and hence heretical.(Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 148-150.)

Catholicbridge.com
Angered by the accusations against him, Galileo took the opportunity to send a copy of his newly published Treatise on the Tides to Cardinal Alessandro Orsini, requesting that Orsini forward the paper to Pope Paul V. Galileo then travelled to Rome himself and sought an audience with the Pope in order to make his case for the Copernican system in person. The move backfired, as the Pope decided to take the opportunity to have the Inquisition rule once and for all on whether or not the Copernican doctrine should be officially condemned as heretical. A panel of eleven Qualifiers (expert theologians) of the Holy Office carefully examined the issue and unanimously concluded that:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith (Halsall 1999).

On the strength of this report, the Inquisition issued an official proclamation declaring that Copernican astronomy was contrary to the Bible [heresy]and therefore could not be supported as factual.

I could go on. Now there are those who deny the above took place. I leave readers to decide who is correct.

 

[grannymh]

Under Saint Malachy’s prophesies in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they have the following:

Nicolaus Copernicus, who was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, spent his youth in Kraków, Poland. The heliocentric model of the universe was described as heretical by Catholic Church during the early 17th century, when the Copernican system was espoused by Galileo Galilei. This position was reversed in 1992 by Pope John Paul II, who also spent his youth in Kraków, Poland, in his apology to Galileo, 450 years after Copernicus published De revolutionibus and 360 years after Galileo’s trial. Thus, the “Toil of the Sun” may have referenced the Church’s acceptance of heliocentricity.

What this really refers to is the fact that lots of Catholics were interested in the amazing science of the Renaissance.

Some Catholics and Protestants preferred geocentrisim and others favored an heliocentric model. *Your science is heretical to my science" became the battle cry. “No. Your science is heretical to my church.” was thrown in for good measure.

Since all the attention is on the local trial of Galileo, Catholics today forget that all the yelling and all the opinions and all the judgments and all the decrees using the four-letter word heresy have no standing when it comes to the properly defined, and duly declared theological dogmas of the Catholic Church. Finding out what the Catholic Church actually teaches is really dull in comparison.

Copernicus died in 1543. Martin Luther died in 1546. The Council of Trent ended in 1563. Galileo was born in 1564. No wonder the religious atmosphere was tense. Definitely, there was a strong impetus to protect the faith of the common individual. But protecting the faith does not mean that the Catholic Church declared the precise position of only one material/physical planet in all the universe to be a theological dogma. No dogma – no theological heresy.

In other words the so-called heliocentrism heresy or Copernican heresy remains in the scientific realm to be debated on scientific grounds.

In every age, there are sinners in the Catholic Church. In every age, Catholic individuals make mistakes. But sinners do not change the mission of Catholicism. We should not be wasting our time trying to figure out which individual in the Galileo event was the biggest sinner. We should be talking about Jesus Christ, the One Who died on the cross to save all sinners.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Robert_Burns]

Wikipedia under Galileo affair.

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”; while the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and … in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”

Universe today:
Galileo Returns to the Vatican 14 Mar 2008 … At his trial, Galileo argued that his heliocentric beliefs and … defined and declared to be FORMAL HERESY – sanction a statue of Galileo …

Forum on Public Policy
'In early 1616 the Church prepared to issue a decree condemning the heliocentric theory
as contrary to Scripture and hence heretical.(Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 148-150.)

Catholicbridge.com
Angered by the accusations against him, Galileo took the opportunity to send a copy of his newly published Treatise on the Tides to Cardinal Alessandro Orsini, requesting that Orsini forward the paper to Pope Paul V. Galileo then travelled to Rome himself and sought an audience with the Pope in order to make his case for the Copernican system in person. The move backfired, as the Pope decided to take the opportunity to have the Inquisition rule once and for all on whether or not the Copernican doctrine should be officially condemned as heretical. A panel of eleven Qualifiers (expert theologians) of the Holy Office carefully examined the issue and unanimously concluded that:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith (Halsall 1999).

On the strength of this report, the Inquisition issued an official proclamation declaring that Copernican astronomy was contrary to the Bible [heresy]and therefore could not be supported as factual.

I could go on. Now there are those who deny the above took place. I leave readers to decide who is correct.

Copernicus was raised by a Catholic Bishop and dedicated his Theory to the Pope.

Galileo refused to teach it as a theory.

Heliocentrism remains a theory. Sure , Science can say whatever it wants to say but since the entire universe has yet to be explored and or its parameters defined - saying that the earth is or isnt the Center of the Universe is not provable.

 

[grannymh]

I could go on. Now there are those who deny the above took place. I leave readers to decide who is correct.

I wonder if readers are aware that "qualifiers’ and “expert theologians” exist in every century and sometimes they spend years debating theological questions. I wonder how many readers have looked at the discussions which led to more prayerful discussions during major Church Councils*****before a theological dogma was declared.

The point is that “qualifiers” and “expert theologians” don’t issue dogmas on their own at a local event.

Of course, readers can decide which or neither planet/sun theory is correct. Readers can decide if the local judges were too heavy handed. Readers may continue researching the following centuries to see how the issue developed. Readers can regret the incident. Or readers can twist the issues into something they are not.

It all boils down to the fact that the Catholic Church Councils, in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, let scientific issues remain in the scientific realm and did not make them theological dogmas one way or the other.

The bottom line, in spite of all that happened, is that Catholics continue to search the universe, looking for its secrets.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[cfrancis]

Wikipedia under Galileo affair.

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”; while the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and … in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”

Wiki…really? ReallY??

Universe today:
Galileo Returns to the Vatican 14 Mar 2008 … At his trial, Galileo argued that his heliocentric beliefs and … defined and declared to be FORMAL HERESY – sanction a statue of Galileo …

Here’s the link to the article: universetoday.com/13175/galileo-to-return-to-vatican/ . Note that part in green comes from the article. The part in purple comes from a commentor who is commenting on the article. Opinion - yes; proof - no.

Forum on Public Policy
'In early 1616 the Church **prepared **to issue a decree condemning the heliocentric theory as contrary to Scripture and hence heretical.(Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 148-150.)

Did they? They prepared to do so, but did they? I know of a report from a commission to the Pope that contained their findings (noted in the excerpt in the next block quote), but I cannot find a declaration from the Pope saying the same. Any help?

Catholicbridge.com
Angered by the accusations against him, Galileo took the opportunity to send a copy of his newly published Treatise on the Tides to Cardinal Alessandro Orsini, requesting that Orsini forward the paper to Pope Paul V. Galileo then travelled to Rome himself and sought an audience with the Pope in order to make his case for the Copernican system in person. The move backfired, as the Pope decided to take the opportunity to have the Inquisition rule once and for all on whether or not the Copernican doctrine should be officially condemned as heretical. A panel of eleven Qualifiers (expert theologians) of the Holy Office carefully examined the issue and unanimously concluded that:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith (Halsall 1999).

**On the strength of this report, the Inquisition issued an official proclamation declaring that Copernican astronomy was contrary to the Bible [heresy] (added by Cassini)**and therefore could not be supported as factual.

I could go on. Now there are those who deny the above took place. I leave readers to decide who is correct.

Here is the link to the article from which the above is taken, so the readers can truly decide!

 

[excubitor]

No dogma of the church prior to Trent has ever been more extensively and utterly condemned by the church than heliocentrism. The church flat out stated that heliocentrism was a heresy and that any teaching that the earth was moving was forbidden, heretical and injurious to the faith. If the church got it wrong then the church has failed and every other dogmatic pronouncement of the church must also be called into question.

The logical conclusion is that the church was correct and that the entire world is believing a lie that the earth is moving around the sun. In the years to come we can expect to see the churches teaching vindicated. In fact all natural observation goes to prove that the earth is in the centre of the universe. In fact I can demonstrate it with a piece of paper and a simple diagram in terms that any high school student can understand.

The modern cosmological teaching defies all natural reasoning. Of course it seems like the entire universe is rotating around the earth and that we are stationery, because that is the truth of the matter. A simple conclusion easily drawn by any man. It is only by the bamboozlements of science that the common man has been led to abandon all natural reasoning and believe an utter absurdity that we have a whole world deceived. But why are we surprised. Men were persuaded to believe that the heavens and earth were created by idols of sticks and stone. So nothing should surprise us as to the gullibility and willingness to be deceived of men who are determined to reject God, the scripture, sacred tradition and the church.

In my view the John Paul II commission into the Galileo affair was an unnecessary capitulation to modern media and popular opinion. It came out of an era where it was fashionable to say “sorry” for the sins of ancestors. But with respect JPII was not there at the time of Galileo. He does not know what it was like and really he has no business second guessing his predecessors.
As Paul Feyerabend asserted correctly.

• The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.[47]

Paul Feyerabend is a philosopher of Science at the University of California.

 

[grannymh]

Wiki…really? ReallY??
Here’s the link to the article: universetoday.com/13175/galileo-to-return-to-vatican/ . Note that part in green comes from the article. The part in purple comes from a commentor who is commenting on the article. Opinion - yes; proof - no.

Did they? They prepared to do so, but did they? I know of a report from a commission to the Pope that contained their findings (noted in the excerpt in the next block quote), but I cannot find a declaration from the Pope saying the same. Any help?
Here is the link to the article from which the above is taken, so the readers can truly decide!

Decrees are not dogma.

 

[cassini]

Copernicus was raised by a Catholic Bishop and dedicated his Theory to the Pope.

Galileo refused to teach it as a theory.

Heliocentrism remains a theory. Sure , Science can say whatever it wants to say but since the entire universe has yet to be explored and or its parameters defined - saying that the earth is or isnt the Center of the Universe is not provable.

Copernicus totally believed in heliocentrism. It was never a theory with him. Copernicus actually abandoned his book. Then came Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574), a student and later math’s professor at Martin Luther’s University of Wittenberg. A new book by Professor Danielson tells us that were it not for Rheticus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus most probably would never have been published.
Rheticus took over the publication of De Rev from Copernicus. He in turn gave it to a Protestant printing house at Nuremberg. There Andreas Osiander (1498-1552) decided to attach a preface to Copernicus’s book. Here it is:

To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work, otherwise known as the ‘Ad lectorem’

**‘Since the newness of the hypothesis of this work –which sets the earth in motion and puts an immovable sun at the centre of the universe- has already received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken grave offence and think it wrong to raise any disturbance among liberal disciplines which have had the right set-up for a long time now. If, however, they are willing to weigh the matter scrupulously, they will find that the author has done nothing that merits blame…
This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’ **

Now note well that this heliocentrism came into the world as a mathematical calculus which fits the observations, not a theory that might or might not be true. It was called a ‘hypothesis’ for want of a better title, nothing more, nothing less. This is the ‘hypothesis’ that avoided any confrontation with Holy Scripture so the Church had no problem with it.

Nowhere will you find this clarification in any version of the Galileo case on Google. The term ‘hypothesis’ is changed to ‘theory’ or ‘hypothesis’ as understood as a theory waiting to be tested. Once changed the whole Galileo affair takes on a new understanding, one that can be and is twisted and turned to make it look like the Church was actually uncertain about the truth of Scripture.

Such detail is absolutely crucial to determining the truth about the Galileo case. There are many more such perversions of the Galileo case written up throughout the centuries, perversions of history, of what the Galileo case was actually about, including denials of the very authority that defined and declared formal heresy and contrary to Catholic faith.

Worst of all this Church affair has been taken over by people who now speak for the Church as though what they say is to be believed. Well, believe what you want, but when they cannot even get Copernicus’s ‘hypothesis’ correct, what worth the rest of their story?

 

[grannymh]

No dogma of the church prior to Trent has ever been more extensively and utterly condemned by the church than heliocentrism. The church flat out stated that heliocentrism was a heresy and that any teaching that the earth was moving was forbidden, heretical and injurious to the faith.

For at least two years plus, CAF posters have been dealing with this issue. I use this time frame because when I landed on CAF, I was attacked for defending the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Actually, some of the attacks were rather funny.

What has happened is that a couple of websites are using a local event in the 17th Century to prove their brand of science. To do this, they have attacked the visible Catholic Church by claiming dogma when there were only decrees.

The really strange thing is that not one person has produced this so-called Dogma-Heresy, when it was declared, and where. The miles of posts, and there have really been miles of posts, all refer to the happenings at a local event. There are references to Scripture, but so far I have not seen any reference to an actual Ecumenical Church Council in session at the same time. I have seen the old advertising gimmick “bait and switch.”

Another strange thing is that the participants on these websites are perfectly free to support geocentricism so why do they need Catholic dogma? Is there something else going on?

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[cassini]

Wiki…really? ReallY??
Here’s the link to the article: universetoday.com/13175/galileo-to-return-to-vatican/ . Note that part in green comes from the article. The part in purple comes from a commentor who is commenting on the article. Opinion - yes; proof - no.

Did they? They prepared to do so, but did they? I know of a report from a commission to the Pope that contained their findings (noted in the excerpt in the next block quote), but I cannot find a declaration from the Pope saying the same. Any help?
Here is the link to the article from which the above is taken, so the readers can truly decide!

My post was in answer to a post that denied the 1616 decree existed. Here it is again:

’Please be careful of the word “decrees”. What decree has been issued? Who issued it and when? If one is going to talk about “decrees” on faith and morals, then one better have the document in hand.'

I think I provided an answer to that nonsense. Are you saying cfrancis that none of the above are to be taken seriously, that they are under an illusion that there was a decree that has become one of the most contested decrees in history, that they are all publishing fiction?

Forum on Public Policy’In early 1616 the Church prepared to issue a decree condemning the heliocentric theory
as contrary to Scripture and hence heretical.(Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 148-150.)

Is Finocchiaro’s book indulging in fiction, the greatest book ever written on the Galileo case by a Copernican?

 

[grannymh]

Such detail is absolutely crucial to determining the truth about the Galileo case. There are many more such perversions of the Galileo case written up throughout the centuries, perversions of history, of what the Galileo case was actually about, including denials of the very authority that defined and declared formal heresy and contrary to Catholic faith.

Of course scientific details are important for scientific issues involving the objects in the visible universe.

So far the only kind of “formal heresy and contrary to the Catholic Faith” you have provided are the local decrees regarding one scientific theory opposed to another scientific theory.
Are you really suggesting that the position of only one physical/material planet in the entire universe is the same as the Catholic Faith whose mission is to bring souls to eternal life with God?

Blessings,
granny

*John 3: 16-17 *

 

[cassini]

Concept and Clarifications of DogmasFundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwick Ott.

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such. Vatican Council I explains: ‘All those things to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching.

An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, that is, the dogma must be revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition.)

The Promulgation of the dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.

The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(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 also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.” — First recorded publicly by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644.

On the 5th March 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the condemnations, 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 in his commentary on Job… 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.’

 

[grannymh]

General Information regarding the operation of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

Vatican I was after the time of Galileo. This is important to note because at the time of Galileo, major theological dogmas were defined at Church Councils and there was no Church Council in session at the time of the local event concerning Galileo

Papal Commissions are not Church Councils and do not have the authority of Church Councils. Members of commissions, including popes and saints, can express their opinions. A specific theological dogma is a certainty and not a bunch of opposing opinions as in the case of Renaissance science.

Jesus Christ did not build His Church on opinions regarding scientific theories in the 17th century. In fact, the period of Divine Revelation had closed long before that.

The Congregation of the Holy Office was not empowered to define a new specific theological dogma about the precise position of one material/physical planet in the entire universe. Of course, members of the congregation could give their individual opinions. The Catholic Deposit of Faith is not made up of opinions from the 17th century.

There was a tradition dating from the Apostolic Age that when there was an important issue of faith, not science, a great deal of time and consultation took place before any theological dogmas were presented to a Church Council for approval. The written notes of these discussions or local decrees and teachings are not the same as theological dogmas defined and proclaimed at a Church Council.

The powers of the Congregation of the Index did not include writing new dogmas specifically stating the physical position of earth in relationship to the rest of God’s creation.

The Pope does have the authority to teach on faith and morals. There is no record of a properly called Church Council proclaiming a specific 17th century scientific theory regarding one material/physical planet in the entire universe as a theological dogma. There is plenty of evidence that Popes did express their opinions about Renaissance science. Catholic theological dogmas are not opinions about Renaissance science.

The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwick Ott are just that.

All that that has been presented regarding geocentrism opposed by heliocentrism are local decrees regarding two material/physical objects that do not have souls.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.

 

[grannymh]

FYI

The next thing to be clarified is that the way the Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation is by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Gathering in a Church Council usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

In addition, Church Councils dealt with the general norms or rules for good order in the visible society of the Church. These are referred to as “cannon law” and are not the same as theological dogmas.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focused on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love. Since God was calling us, the Catholic leadership focused on human nature and what we must choose to do in order to remain in God’s friendship. In relationship to salvation, the Catholic leadership focused on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the validity of Seven Sacraments.

Because the Catholic focus was on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searched the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation. Knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, but it was deemed unnecessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God exists does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science.

Consequently, the Catholic Church does not have properly defined theological dogmas regarding the position of any individual material/physical planet.

Catholicism does not depend on the affirmation of geocentrism. To even imply that the position of one particular material/physical planet is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith is promoting false information.

One certainly may present the science of geocentrism as worthy of belief. But one should not mislead readers about what is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.