[continued from previous message]   
      
   distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric   
   site, but it was still a heresy.   
      
   The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.   
       They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got   
   reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the   
   Council of Trent were published.   
      
   The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy   
   charge in his first encounter.  When the pope got involved they just did   
   not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing.  Galileo's views were   
   still condemned.  They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of   
   heresy.  His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and   
   the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.   
   The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case   
   published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the   
   heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church.  They   
   just want to claim that, that was not an official act.  That is just   
   stupid.  The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want   
   to plead that he was not acting as pope?   
      
   There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.   
   They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility.  That in itself   
   should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.   
      
   The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism   
   into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,   
   and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the   
   church fathers.  Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric   
   Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church   
   came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the   
   church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting   
   scripture.  Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this   
   to be true.   
      
   QUOTE:   
   Council of Trent   
   Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of   
   the Sacred Books:   
      
   ... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council   
   of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in   
   matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of   
   Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,   
   presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense   
   which holy Mother Church—to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense   
   and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—hath held and doth hold; or   
   even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such   
   interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.   
   Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished   
   with the penalties by law established."   
   END QUOTE:   
      
   https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm   
      
   Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused   
   the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating   
   heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric   
   beliefs of the church fathers.   
      
   It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our   
   current understanding of nature.  The Pope was wrong about it.  He was   
   one of the mistaken actors.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)