From: eastside.erik@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/14/25 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:38:34 -0600, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/14/2025 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:04:12 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>> No, it's most certainly not true. heliocentrism was *never* a heresy -   
   >>>> you clearly don't even understand what the term "formal heresy" means.   
   >>>   
   >>> You really should educate yourself on this rather than continuing to   
   >>> make stupid claims that heliocentrism being a "formal heresy".   
   >>>   
   >>> https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2019/10/formal-vs-material-heresy.html   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >> The anti geocentric catholics make a big deal about the difference   
   >> between formal heresy and just a heresy.   
   >   
   > Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?   
   >   
   >> They wanted the Pope to not be   
   >> associated with a formal heresy charge, but even they admitted that the   
   >> Inquisition had made heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge when   
   >> Galileo first faced the charge.  The anti geocentrics just claim that   
   >> the Inquisition case against Galileo was not adopted by the court when   
   >> the Pope got involved.  So both Catholic sides of the issue know that it   
   >> was deemed to be a formal heresy.  One side just does not want it to   
   >> have been a formal heresy charge when the Pope was involved.  The wiki   
   >> also notes that it was deemed to be a formal heresy the first time   
   >> Galileo faced the charge.   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   Let's face it Martin.  Galileo's treatment at the hands of the church   
   ("formal" or not) is a lasting embarrassment.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)