From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/20/2026 8:07 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/20/26 3:43 PM, RonO wrote:   
   >  > On 2/20/2026 10:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >  >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:53:53 -0600, RonO    
   >  >> wrote:   
   >  >>   
   >  >>> On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >  >>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO    
   >  >>>> wrote:   
   >  >>>>   
   >  >>>>> On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >  >>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO    
   >  >>>>>> wrote:   
   >  >>>>>>   
   >  >>>>>> [...]   
   >   
   >  >>    
   >  >>   
   >  >> Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year   
   >  >> MDXLVI.   
   >  >>   
   >  >> DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS   
   >  >>   
   >>> Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,-considering that no   
   >>> small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known   
   >>> which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the   
   >>> sacred books, is to be held as authentic,-ordains and declares,   
   >>> that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened   
   >>> usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in   
   >>> public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as   
   >>> authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it   
   >>> under any pretext whatever. >>   
   >  >> Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It 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 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said   
   >  >> sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother   
   >  >> Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of   
   >  >> the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] 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.   
   >  >>    
   >  >>   
   >>> Note "in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the   
   >>> edification of Christian doctrine" and "the unanimous consent of   
   >>> the Fathers", the two points I made above that you tried to dismiss   
   >>> as bullshit.   
   >> You believe the switch run on you.  Unanimous consent is not "taught"   
   >> it is unanimous agreement, and not dismissal.   
   > It seems also that unanimous consent of the church fathers is a lower   
   > bar than the sense which holy mother church hath held and doth hold, and   
   > that the latter includes more than the former. The church can have   
   > doctrines that the fathers were not unanimous on or held but did not   
   > teach, and even those that some or all of them never expressed an   
   > opinion on. Or such is the apparent meaning of the text.   
   >   
   > How many of the church fathers ever mentioned geocentrissm?   
      
   As far as I know the "Taught" change was only implemented after the   
   geocentric beliefs of the church fathers was found to be wanting.  At   
   the time of Galileo the Inquisition was going with what the Council of   
   Trent had laid down.   
      
   Elsewhere I put up 4 of them that used Bible verses to support   
   geocentrism.  The rest wrote about the creation as if it were geocentric   
   and did not dismiss the Biblical belief.  Just like the authors of the   
   Bible and the New testament wrote about what they understood to be the   
   case.  This is not considered "teaching" geocentrism by the wafflers.   
   The wafflers like Harran do not deny that the Church Fathers were all   
   geocentrists, only that they did not "teach" that scriptural belief   
   unanimously.  Some of the authors of the New testament may have been   
   flat earth creationists even though that Biblical interpretation had   
   failed before Christ was born, and their writings are used to support   
   flat earth Biblical creationism.  None of the Church fathers were flat   
   earthers.  Some openly dismissed the notion.  Saint Augustine's   
   admonition, that scripture should not be used to deny what we can figure   
   out for ourselves, may have been due to the flat earth issue, but he   
   doesn't state what was being denied due to scripture.  Saint Augustine   
   is one of the Church Fathers that quoted Bible verses in support of   
   geocentrism.  He did not dismiss the notion, but my take is that he   
   would have changed his mind when faced by what we understand the case to   
   be at this time.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   >  >> Also note the other bit in there:   
   >  >>   
   >  >> "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 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said   
   >  >> sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother   
   >  >> Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of   
   >  >> the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold".   
   >  >   
   >  > You are the one that is misrepresenting what the Council of Trent   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)