From: eastside.erik@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/14/25 9:15 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.   
   >   
   The church has indeed improved its outlook.  Studying God's creation in   
   order to understand how it works is much smarter that insisting you   
   already know all you need.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)