From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/14/2025 11:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:04:19 -0800, erik simpson   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Absolutely, their treatment of him was truly awful and a very serious   
   > abuse of the Church's authority. In fairness, the Church has openly   
   > admitted that it did get it badly wrong.   
   >   
   > Having said that, it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that those   
   > wish to attack the Church for its dealings with science have to go   
   > back 400 years to find one stupid mistake.   
   >   
      
   It wasn't just a stupid mistake.  It was inappropriate denial of reality   
   due to religious belief.  It is what Saint Augustine had admonished them   
   about, but erroneous religious beliefs still matter to creationists.   
   There are still geocentric catholics.  There are still young earth   
   geocentric catholics.  Google claims that there are still fringe flat   
   earth creationist Catholics.  These guys do not want to give up any of   
   their Biblical beliefs in the face of reality.  Denying this reality   
   doesn't help your case.  It's not just Catholic bashing, Bishop Ussher   
   was a protestant Bishop of the Church of Ireland when he came up with   
   Earth's birthday of 4004 BC.  My guess is that most of the Flat earth   
   Biblical creationists that still exist are protestants of one kind or   
   another.   
      
   Pagano was an old earth anti evolution geocentric catholic.  How is that   
   even possible?  Pagano could ignore all the young earth Biblical   
   nonsense and flat earth claims, but couldn't deal with something that   
   was not even mentioned in the Bible, and fell on his sword for   
   geocentric beliefs that can likely be assumed to have been metaphorical   
   allusions to Earth's place with respect to the Biblical god.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)