As Pope St. Pius X explained in his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis – On the Doctrines of the Modernists – such persons often play fast and loose with language; “twisting words” and engaging in certain “novelties of words.”
To this end, the Holy Father cited his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who charged “the children of darkness” with “perverting the meaning and force of things and words.”
This propensity for manipulating language on the part of evil-doers gives rise to the invention of new terminologies that only serve to obscure the truth.
In the socio-political realm, phrases like “pro-choice,” “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” serve as prime examples.
Turning our attention back to the modernists who operate from within the Church, the Second Vatican Council has provided an outstanding example with its use of the phrase “separated brethren,” which appears in the text of Unitatis Redintegratio – the Decree on Ecumenism – more than a dozen times.
In this post, I propose that we play our own word game, or rather, Word game – as in Microsoft Word.
Let’s begin by copying and pasting the text of the Decree on Ecumenism in a Word doc.
Then, using the “find and replace” tool, let’s replace every instance of “our separated brethren” with the plain truth – “heretics, schismatics and apostates.”
What emerges, while not especially surprising to regular readers of this space, does provide a lesson in the importance of language, and the way in which evil is always served when it is anything other than clear and direct.
Here are just some examples of what our Word game produces:
Every effort [must be made] to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of heretics, schismatics and apostates with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult.
Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among heretics, schismatics and apostates.
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of heretics, schismatics and apostates can be a help to our own edification.
So we humbly beg pardon of God and of heretics, schismatics and apostates, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.
It is the urgent wish of this Holy Council that the measures undertaken by the sons of the Catholic Church should develop in conjunction with those of heretics, schismatics and apostates…
One wonders, how many bishops and priests in the year of the Decree’s promulgation (1964); men whose seminary formation took place in the decades before the Council and who daily offered the Mass of Ages, would have gone along with this program?
As it is, the Council has managed to convince generations of what Archbishop Lefebvre called “confused Catholics” – both lay and ordained – that the ecumenical movement operates in service to God.
While we’re at it, let’s play a different kind of Word game.
This time, we’re going to refashion the Council’s ode to human progress, otherwise known as Gaudium et Spes, by substituting every occurrence of “man” with “Christ the King.”
Here are some examples of what emerges:
For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be Christ the King, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will.
It devolves on humanity to establish a political, social and economic order which will growingly serve Christ the King and help individuals as well as groups to affirm and develop the dignity proper to them.
Hence under the light of Christ, the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of every creature, the council wishes to speak to all men in order to shed light on the mystery of Christ the King and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time.
All things on earth should be related to Christ the King as their center and crown.
In this case, by replacing “man” with “Christ the King,” what emerges in many instances is a text wherein the right order of things is restored; thus exposing the presence of an anthropocentrism in the original document that can only be considered diabolical.
Let’s play just one more…
Starting with the text of Dignitatis Humanae – the Declaration on Religious Freedom – everywhere we find the word “right,” we’re going to plug in “no right;” i.e., the exact opposite.
What should emerge – that is, if the substance of the document is in any way consonant with authentic Catholic doctrine – is a text that cries out for condemnation.
Among the concepts that emerge are the following:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has no right to religious freedom … No right to immunity from external coercion exists in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.
Hmmm… sounds an awful lot like the traditional teaching, doesn’t it?
“By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish perfidy.” (Pope Pius VII, Post tam diuturnas, 29 April 1814).
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, no. 15)
“The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them.” (The situation lamented by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, 1925)
In conclusion, the Word games we just played are anything but games; rather, they represent a serious effort to call our attention back to one of the specific evils that Our Lady came to forewarn us about at Fatima; namely, the “suicide of altering the faith” that took place at Vatican Council II.
In this, the centenary year of her miraculous appearance, let us remain ever diligent in connecting the message of Fatima with the errors of the Council, which, in large measure, are synonymous with the errors of Russia.
Another phrase worth despising is “elder brothers,” when referring to the Jews. How can these groups be called ” brethren” and “brothers” when they hate us, or try to destroy us. Yes, the modernists love to do this. Another one that Pope Benedict invented is calling the traditional mass “extraordinary,” juxtaposed against calling the new mass “ordinary.”
How about replacing “dialogue” with “meaningless blather”
Brilliant analysis as always Louie.
Another modernist trick is making convoluted arguments to justify how a Pope can be a heretic and how its justified to resist a Pope’s Magesterial teachings. A modernist, simply put, refuses to make absolute judgments. For them, there always has to be wiggle room and some manner to justify small errors or imperfections. These are drops of poison that they spread and infect great multitudes. A thing either is, or it isnt. The reason it is so hard to remain true to the Truth is because to do so will entail losing human respect from some quarter and possibly a deprevation of ones conveniences. What is needed is a fanatical zeal for Truth. We simply cannot make one iota of a compromise on anything with modernists. Until all trads realize that all modernists, including clergy, must be anathematized (if not formally, then in practice) no progress will be made in restoration of Holy Mother Church. Christ may restore His Bride through Divine Intervention, or He may employ His remaing troops. Remember the story of Gideon. Only when he had 300 left, did God allow him to attack. I suspect (given how SSPX may surrender) the number of His true followers could get even smaller until only the zealots and martyrs remain.
Great analysis Louie. The spineless jellyfish the Modernist emulate suffocates the Truth. They drive the Faithful into the Doldrums of apostacy.
Then hound those who pray the Traditional Rites. Their very very “ordinary form” wallows in that sea of confusion purporting to be someting that it was but no longer is; formless and bereft it serves its true purpose to deprive those attached to it for lack of an alternative. But Christ will provide our supersubstancial bread to those who seek him out in faith hope and charity. Like your ecamples in substitution demonstrated with correct Word form, so too can we trim our headsails and pick up a fresh breeze, away from modernism and as Peter did ” put out into the deep”.
The rewards are incomperable towards life eternal.
St Mathew ora pro nobis.
Words–Yes! Symbols also–what have they done to the beautiful image of the rainbow which meant joy and hope?
No God = no rights
No God = no (libertarian) free will
Dearest Tom A,
Thank you for your clarity in Truth, once and again. It is all very plain as you suggest. Our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, made His command exquisitely clear in Matthew 5:37;
“37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.”.
For the purposes of this discussion, anyone who purports to be a cleric at any level and whose speech is not pristinely clear and definitive in Truth, is deceived and as thus he is proffering evil in his deception which, as the evil, is the privation of the good which is due in the act. In this case again, the act in question, is catechizing the Baptized in Truth and NOT in deception. The question then becomes whether, if in his deception which speaks as res ipsa loquitur, he is also a deceiver, compounding his evil of being deceived with the mortal sin of deliberately deceiving, as the Modernist quo Modernist in fact does. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, makes this command exquisitely clear in Matthew 18:6:
“6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Then, as is clear for all those with eyes which indeed see, these “Modernists” are not Catholic, as that is the punishment which Almighty God allows them to incur, in the Supernatural Hope that they will see their errant ways, as they wallow in their misery while they still breathe this side the veil, and save their very own wretched souls. As one is a Modernist, one is NOT also Catholic, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. The “same respect” here being that which actually constitutes holding the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation, deFide. As one is an heretic, as “Modernism” is the summation of all heresies, and as heresy is in utter opposition to the Faith, one cannot also be in union with the Faith as he is in opposition. Again, these truths are very simple, while at once pristinely clear, as a child would understand after attaining the age of reason. As all of these clerics indict themselves as being “Modernists”, they implicate themselves ipso-facto as being in heresy, as there is no alternative choice in simple Truth, as He is a divine Person. Our Blessed Lord and Savior commanded in John 14: He who knows My commands and follows them loves Me and as I am in the Father, you are in Me and I in you. Very simple as He commanded in Matthew 12:30:
“30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.”
As we know thus, that the “liturgical space” which the Modernists occupy, is NOT, as it simply CANNOT be, the true Church of Jesus the Christ, because they choose to oppose the Faith and where the Faith is in opposition, the Catholic Church CANNOT also be, as the law of non-contradiction commands. Who are the “Modernists”, we ask? The “Modernist” is every prelate, cleric, religious, and lay, so called faithful, who embraces and worships in the “conciliar church”, as the church of Modernism, as the church of the Antichrist, whose exegesis and consequent catechesis is the religion of man, taking all souls who choose freely to be there, by virtue of their reception of the “operation of error”, on the unmistakable path to eternal hell.
Finally, perhaps the greatest irony is this. Those human persons who claim to be so called “traditionalist” or “Traditional Catholics” and in their “preference” for the so called “Old Liturgy”, as if there can be any other Liturgy (“Quo Primum”), and therefore just as they suggest their “preference”, they acknowledge the “novus ordo missae” and the “conciliar church” as also somehow “true” (a near perfect diabolical deception in the passive understanding), pervert the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, placing themselves in schism as they “oppose” these men they call “pope”, in their teaching on Faith and Morality. They then literally as actually decide what the authentic Magisterium “shall” (in distinction from “should”) be, as though they themselves are the “pope”. Thus, they place themselves outside Holy Mother Church in schism, where there is no salvation, deFide. This to be understood, while at the same time they hurl the accusation at those they refer to as “Sedevacantist”, in the pejorative, as being the Baptized who are in schism. It is an all but perfect diabolical conundrum. The vices of cowardice, sloth, and of course pride, play the biggest role in this deception, that the Chair of Saint Peter must be or “will” be occupied until the end of time. The true Vatican Council of the 19th century taught infallibly that the Pontiff, “should” be, in accordance with God’s Holy Will, in the Chair until the end of time, NOT that he “will” be. 2 Thess 2 holds the key for all those with eyes which see. Amen. This is a diabolical conundrum the likes of which mankind will never experience again, as we never have experienced before. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Lumen Gentium 16 ” Infidels together with us worship the same merciful God”
The same can be said of particular sedes.
How does one reconcile with the Church and the Papacies that officially condemned Heliocentrism & Copernicism as formally heretical, binding throughout Christendom with latter Papacies that undermined it, and subscribed to it openly against the faith and Papal Magisterial Teachings and the conclusions of the Holy Office, the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, the Biblical commentators and Holy Scripture?
How many Sedes declare that the Popes automatically are out of the Church for obvious heresy while many themselves believe that the Earth rotates and goes around the Sun?
Remember the story of David? How when he himself had explicit knowledge that Saul had lost face with God who had anointed David in his place still did not of his own authority overthrow Saul?
A split-Kingship then between two contestants to the throne, versus a split-Papacy now. I believe that is a type for our times.
It is more likely that Benedict XVI remains Pope. But a state of Sedevacantism is also possible now assuming Benedict’s resignation is legitimate.
Answer: We don’t know. Someone has to do the digging to find out. Someone with jurisdiction representing the Church. It may not occur in our accursed lifetimes, but all in all considering past precedent and the Galileo affair, the auto-deposed sede criteria doesn’t hold water if all that’s relevant is a matter of material heresy. Formal heresy must be established or abundantly clear.
I frankly believe that Francis does match the criteria for formal heretic. but due process must be followed. While the world falls apart under unlawfulness, God still expects us to desire order and due process regardless of whether we like it or not. Again, recall King David.
I’ll also add –
Error = Truth
Man = God
The Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops carries the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, not because it is your pleasure nor mine, rather because it is the Will of Almighty God for His Church, His Mystical Body and spotless Bride. Matters of rotational arrangements of the cosmos are not matters deFide nor of Morality, period and end. The Holy Roman Pontiff can err, as can his Bishops, in all matters scientific but not the in the science of all science, Thomistic metaphysics, which enables right reason. Do not succumb to the temptation of Lucifer which suggests that “Johnno knows best” for Holy Mother Church. Our eternal salvation rests in the very movement of our free will and only by the reception of God’s grace can we choose the good over the evil, as the Angelic Doctor taught. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Johnno, I have never heard that Geocentrism was de fide and to be held by all the faithful. Nor have I ever heard that geocentrism was part of the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. I do not think it was taught always and everywhere. I also cannot recall heliocentrism officially labelled a heresy. If so, please cite a source.
Brilliant analysis Louis! I’m surprised other bloggers and authors haven’t done this already or at least more frequently (replacing ambiguous terms with the Catholic or truthful term and then the original statement is put into perspective). It is a highly effective way of exposing trash and double-speak for what it is. I encourage you to continue using this method in future articles where relevant. Perhaps for some articles, just one paragraph or a sentence or two employing this method to Pope Francis’s words or to those of other heretical bishops or priests would be an effective way to undermine their game. There is power in words. There is a famous expression: “like cures like”. If you use this word game method when confronted with ambiguous sentences or loaded questions, it uses the weapon of the haters of truth to expose the truth.
On the authority of God’s inerrant Word:
“Then Joshua spoke to the Lord,… and he (Joshua) said…Move not, O sun, toward Gibeon nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still….Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven…”
This a link to Galileo from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia.
Come on Tom, you can do better than deflect to the Galileo affair.
You asked for evidence that Geocentrism was de fide. And I gave you a biblical reference which states 3 times that, on the command of Joshua, for a certain time (in fact for the duration of 24 hours) the sun no longer moved but stood still. No doubt the apostles believed this and so did the whole Church, until a few centuries ago when Geocentrism was no longer taught, with disastrous consequences as it elevated belief in scientific discovery and undermined the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Where are the Papal pronouncements? Where are the Encyclicals and Bulls? Geocentrism may have been believed by many peoples of the past but I have not seen where it was magesterial taught. That verse you quoted proves absolutely nothing except that the sun stood still in relation to the earth.
In addition, show me where it is de fide to now believe in heliocentrism?
As Tom A writes, there is no specific teaching as to the positioning of cosmic bodies in the cosmos and what might wonder why there would be. Let’s look at more of the context of the scriptural text which you chose to quote Ursula, as the line that follows your “…” gives us specific context as to this miraculous event that occurred in a particular point in time, as all of God’s miracles, for His purposes. From the Douay-Rheims copy:
“11 And when they were fleeing from the children of Israel, and were in the descent of Beth-horon, the Lord cast down upon them great stones from heaven as far as Azeca: and many more were killed with the hailstones than were slain by the swords of the children of Israel. 12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.”
There we have the context which speaks to the time of the occurrence of the stillness of the sun and the moon, “till the people revenged themselves of their enemies.” In any event, the geocentric model speaks to the stillness of the earth, with the rest of the cosmos revolving around it, not the sun and the moon being “still”. I pray this helps. In caritas.
error: “what might wonder…”
correction: “one might wonder…”
If the sun was at the centre and the earth moved around the sun and around its own axis, Joshua’s command for the sun to stand still would have made no sense.
There was no need for a magisterial pronouncement on Geocentrism before Galileo, because it was always believed by the Universal Church. That’s why Galileo, Copernicus etc caused such an upheaval.
Rather than defending what has always been believed, the Church seemed to have caved in to
“scientific discovery” (long before Vatican II), with the results I’ve mentioned, a loss of Faith in favour of science and loss of belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, allowing for doubt on everything that has been held for certain. Maybe Johnno has more information regarding explicit Magisterial teaching on this.
I see your point which is logically consistent, as if the “sun” and “moon” stood still, it is because they were once in motion, with the inference that their motion was around the earth, as the cause of night and day. That understood, as Tom A suggests and as I concur, there is no specific teaching about geocentrism as any teaching, deFide. The authentic Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as you know, remains the final arbiter as singular Authority, in all matters of Faith and Morality. Until the Magisterium pronounces, causing a “defined dogma” to be known and to be taught by the Magisterium thus, there is ever room for theological discourse and debate, even including of course the Holy Roman Pontiff, who may err as theologian, but not as Pontiff in union with his Bishops, as the Magisterium thus speaks with the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility. Unless Johnno can produce an official Magisterial document which specifically defines “geocentrism” as a dogma of the Church, it is a matter of debate, as theological and astronomical discourse, if you will. In caritas.
Ursala, I am not unsympathetic to your concerns about geocetrism. This issue was very damaging to the Church because of human error. Prior to this episode, the Church supported science to measure the physical universe in harmony with Sacred Scripture. Many of the ancients made the assumption that the Earth was the center of the Universe. We may be the center of the universe, but science can not answer this problem. We simply have no fixed reference point to say with certitude who is moving and who is not. We only have observation without reference. The Churchmen of the medieval times believed the earth the center because everyone did. Even the ancient pagans believed it. The helio theories better explain the observations on celestial motion but they can never prove who actually is moving and who is not. I do not recall ever reading where the Church ever proclaimed one or the other as Truth. The churchmen simply said they misinterpreted scripture. And that is the problem with a literal non magesterial interpretation of scripture. We have thousands of protestant sects running around because of their own interpretations. As a side note, the biggest critics of Galileo’s helio model were protestant heretics.
I agree with everything Louie wrote but I believe, just like Father Leonard Feeney, that the number one modernist error that needs to be corrected is the nullification of the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church”. This doctrine needs to be understood exactly the way that it was proclaimed and understood up until the 20thC. Everyone thinks that Father Feeney was excommunicated for his literal interpretation of this doctrine, but that is NOT the case. That was just widely publicized because it was politically necessary for the future promotion of ecumanism. If Pope Pius XII had strongly supported Father Feeney, as he should have, there would not have been a Vatican II. There is no such thing as Baptism of Desire. It was fabricated in the 20th C. It never existed before in the history of the Church, and it never can be validated because it goes against every formal pronouncement and Tradition of the Church regarding water Baptim and its necessity for salvation. Honestly, does it really make sense that all you have to do is be a “good person” and then you go to heaven? Why did all the missionaries die?
How many times did Jesus say that you can only be saved through belief in HIm and adherence to his Words. “Unless you be born again of water and the Holy Spirit you shall not have life in you.” ….”Go and Baptize all nations, teaching them everything whatsoever I have told you.” Those were his PARTING WORDS.
Father Feeney is a bloodless martyr for the Faith, and I predict future generations, if there are any, will talk about him like we talk about Athanasius.
Everyone needs to read about Father Feeney and learn the Faith.
Go to 30:00 of this video:
to hear Rick Delano explain the latest science concerning cosmic microwave background radiation (the oldest light in the universe). Based on what we are seeing in our telescopes, big bang cosmology, such as you describe, founded in special relatively, is dead. Science is confirming geocentrism, by observation.
I agree with you. Somehow baptism of desire got into the Baltimore Catechism in a big way. The Council of Trent said that perfect contrition can forgive sins before confession. Apparently, it also works for entry into the Church by water baptism.
Science in its purest form is only good at making measurements. Modern man has dethroned God and put the scientist in his spot. I don’t believe anything they tell us anymore. The only question worth asking and answering is why does one exist. Of course, thanks to the Catholic Church we know this answer. In fact, every school child knew it by rote. To know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him, so I can be happy in this life and the next.
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire will always be speculative and subjective. The Church can never rule in anything other the objective realm. Man cannot rule out BoD or BoB but man also cannot apply them either. It is an aspect of theology that can never be known since it is not objective. What is objective is a person being witnessed having water poured over his head while the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” are spoken. This is our Great Commission, to baptize all. Work toward this goal and worry not about those that do not receive baptism before death. They will be dealt with Mercy and Justice. And so shall we.
I do see your point John314. At some point shortly after the restoration of the Church, some sort of clarification needs to be given that clears up the confusion introduced by Pius XII and the Fr Feeney affairs.
I was surprised to hear a priest argue in favor of baptism of desire saying there are three kinds of baptism, but two of them are not sacraments! When I asked him about the Nicene Creed where it says “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” he replied, “I John 5:7, Baptism of water, blood and desire are one.” I wondered, if only one is a sacrament, how can all three be “one?”
So I looked them up, and that’s not what I found at all.  This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.  And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.  And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
If there was any doubt, the note explaining it should help:  Came by water and blood”: Not only to wash away our sins by the water of baptism, but by his own blood.  “The spirit, and the water, and the blood”: As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ’s divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross; and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony.
So the Bible notes assure us it was the Blood of Jesus St. John was referring to, not the blood of someone dying without water baptism. And it was the Water that came forth from His side and the Spirit of God as Our Lord died on the cross to which St. John refers not to so-called baptism of blood and of desire, as the Modernists claim.
In the end, it is not for us to know the fate of anyone dying without Holy Baptism, for we cannot know their subjective state at the moment of death, but if they would ask for water baptism and receive it, the question would be settled. Our Lord promised us that anything we ask of the Father in His name, He will give it to us, so why would God not provide for us water baptism if we would only ask for it, and how then could it be “an impossiblity” as the baptism of desire proponents say? In that way they deny the providence of God.
Inert: If Pope Pius XII had strongly supported Father Feeney, as he should have, there would not have been a Vatican II.
They had to eliminate Fr. Feeney in order for their serving of idols to succeed, which culminated with false ecumenism and Vatican II’s religious liberty and the Newmass and Newsacraments. If Fr. Feeney had not be gotten out of the way first, they would never have been able to conduct the revolution via an evil council. And they may not have been able to keep the Third Secret under wraps, either.
Tom A, you sound like the people that say it really doesn’t matter whether we believe in evolution or not as long as we know God and can be happy in this life and the next. I think its a little more complicated than that. If it wasnt that serious I dont think the Church would have declared Gallileo a heretic and put him away or whatever they did to begin with. It was one of the biggest controversies in the Church ever. I think St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of Church, placed a little more importance on this issue than you. Whether what side you believe to blow it off as if it is of no importance makes no sense when looking at the history of the battle that went on between both sides during the controversy.
The confusion started with Pius IX and his never heard of before interpretation of Invincible Ignorance. I also dont understand why people always bring up Baptisn of desire and baptism of blood with invincible ignorance. Its like comparing apples and oranges, they’re not the same things from what I can see.
I agree Father Feeney had it right in the sense he knew that destruction of eens would equal destruction of the Church, in fact he probably only one in last 150 years that did. I’m feel 100% he was right on invincible ignorance, but b.o.d and b.o.b. I’m not sure about plus I really dont think they destroy eens like i.i. does.
See this here definition of b.o.b. makes perfect sense to me where as invincible ignorance doesn’t https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32084
See here plenty of fathers/ doctors quotes about b.o.d. and b.o.b. that make sense but nothing like this at all with invincible ignorance other than a few things of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas but even than their quotes have absolutely nothing to do with salvation until Pope Pius IX was first pope to define it as such in 1854. Thats why I say they shouldn’t be lumped together. Invincible Ignorance is the only heretical one that destroyed eens imo http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
To me the big difference is with b.o.d.and b.o.b. we physically, visibly and verbally know someone made a commitment to come into the Church before they died but theres no such thing like that with i.i. That’s why I don’t think there even comparable.
Thats not what I meant. The Church has a duty to protect Truth. Galileo was going around proclaiming his heliocentric model as truth, and disobeying the Pope who had temporal powers also. That is why he was arrested and put under house arrest. In a very nice house too. This is all in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, but no one seems to want to read it. You just want to keep repeating protestant lies about the whole affair that were meant to disgrace the Church. It was a complicated affair and one which severely damaged the Church’s reputation and destroyed the pure scientific method established by St Thomas Aquanis. The Church did not teach heresy. In hindsight it could have been handled differently. The protestants, being a false religion, quickly used the affair to then paint the Church as backwards and against science. Which is ironic seeing how they were at first some of the biggest critics of heliocentrism. It just goes to show the shallow respect for truth in protestantism and its ultimate goal to destroy the Church. A goal they share with Muslim, Jew, pagan, Hindu, Taoist, et al.
Except Caritas, the Pontiffs didn’t rule against Heliocentrism because of Scientific criteria but because of matters of the Faith.
Something which you, given you are clearly arguing in favor or atheistic Heliocentrism and against the Papacy and the Fathers subscribe to, which according to your own criteria means you have separated yourself from the Church, or rather the implication being that the Church vanished 200 years ago.
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators”(Bellarmine to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, April 12, 1615).
So whose side are you on In Caritas? This is not what ‘Johnno knows best.’ Geocentrism was upheld by the Church, the Holy Office, the Consensus of the Fathers, Councils and the full weight of Papal authority. Against which the current Scientific establishment cannot prove against, subscribing to Relativity and Einstein who believe the motion of the Earth through space cannot be detected and is masked just enough by imaginary unprovable assertions of shrinking matter and bending time and space which are unobservable.
For starters the ruling of the Holy Office and the canonical trial.
“Che il sole sia centro del mondo et immobile di moto
locale, è propositione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e
formalmente heretica, per essere espressamente contraria
alla Sacra Scrittura.”
(Translation: “The proposition that the sun is the center
of the world and does not move from its place is absurd
and false philosophically and formally heretical,
because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture”)
“Che la terra non sia centro del mondo nè imobile, ma che
si muova etiandio di moto diurno, è parimente
propositione assurda e falsa nella filosofia, e considerate in
teologia ad minus erronea in Fide.”
(Translation: “The proposition that the Earth is not the
center of the world and immovable but that it moves,
and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and
false philosophically and theologically considered at
least erroneous in faith”)
The decrees against heliocentrism included in the formal
sentence against Galileo Galileo, approved and facilitated
by Pope Urban VIII, June 22, 1633498
This was upheld by several pontiffs and enforced against all of Christendom. Even the Catholic editors of Newton’s works had to append a notice stating that they distanced themselves from Newton’s propositions out of obedience to the Holy Pontiffs.
“So far as we can conclude from the circumstances of the condemnation, Pope Urban VIII and the cardinals of the Holy
Office certainly did not themselves think it to be “reformable.” Furthermore, if it was reformable, why has the condemnation of 1633 or, for that matter, the Decree of the Congregation of the Index in 1616 never explicitly been “reformed.” –
The Church and Galileo, p. 354. Coyne adds: “In the Galileo case the historical facts are that further research into the Copernican system was forbidden by the decree of 1616 and then condemned in 1633 by official organs of the Church with the approbation of the reigning pontiffs” (ibid).
“And let there be no mistake, the judgment of the qualifiers in 1616 and the language of the decree supported by it were couched in definitive terms; it was not proposed as something “reformable,” to use a term favored by some recent theologians. The decree did not say that in the absence of a demonstration, maintaining the Copernican theses would be risky (“temerarious”). It described the theses as “contrary to Scripture,” period, just as the qualifiers had “qualified” the heliocentric claim as “formally heretical.”” – Ernan McMullin in“The Church’s Ban on Copernicanism,” in The Church and Galileo, p. 159.
Please also note that not even John Paul II, who sought a commission to reverse this ruling could do it. Instead in a speech by Cardinal Poupard, he appealed to the current scientific consensus that Relativity meant neither side could prove their case, and apologized for any vague faults on the part of the Church anyway. Poupard also distorted history with regards to the granting of imprimaturs and relaxing of rules for heretical works meant the Church ‘changed its mind,’ which in no way overturn a canonical trial or Papal rulings on such matters any more than Bishops conferences and heretical ecumenical documents today can. This is only evidence of a long history of modernism creeping into the Church long ago, which would culminate in Vatican II where according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Galileo Affair was an embarassing period of the Church’s history which forced the Vatican II periti to take another look at Papal infallibility, Tradition, the authority of Scripture which were probably only reserved to ‘matters of salvation’ and not scientific/historical sciences. A window and dialogue needed to be opened up to the world you see… because the Church wanted to avoid another Galileo Affair again.
But science never proved its case against Galileo. In the year 2017, the results have been even more devastating for the anti-Papal Scientific consensus who now must run away to imaginary multi-universes to escape the phenomena of the Earth’s centrality and incredible uniqueness and the fine-tuning required for it to even exist.
You’ve only demonstrated that you’ve bought into the atheist/modernist lies about science such as Relativity.
They claim science cannot answer that question when it absolutely has, but this information is not known to the general public.
The only reason Relativity exists is because Einstein and co. had to cook up some explanation to the tens of thousands of interferometer experiments that could only detect evidence of ether rotation of a 24 hours period but absolutely could not detect the 30km/sec speed assumed for the Earth’s revolution around the Sun.
So Einstein and the scientific establishment, driven PURELY BY PHILOSOPHICAL BIASES, presumed the Aether they were measuring the Earth’s velocity against did not exist (proven false by Sagnac and others), but had to introduce bullshit notions that matter shrinks, time dilates and physical space bends in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and magically does so just enough to perfectly create the illusion that no movement is detected.
When Hubble looked through his telescope and saw redshift in every direction which put Earth at the center of the dispersion, he called this a horrifying scenario, and thus had to invent a universe where the concept or 3D space as you and I understand it is an illusion and we are therefore on the surface of a universe which is an expanding balloon, so that presumably the redshift phenomenon should be detectable anywhere.
Why did these men go to such lengths to propagate this nonsense?
Because the alternative is that the Church and the Holy Pontiffs were correct, and the scientific establishment who for years propped the Church up as Enemy #1 of Scientific advancement were now faced with a sheer embarrassing situation that they now had to fall upon their own sword and admit that they, the glorious revolution of enlightened atheistic man, had failed and had only added more credibility to the Catholic Church as the guardian of Truth and the True Religion, because it alone put its credibility at stake to defend the proposition of Geocentrism and that the Earth being central and unmoving made it supremely unique against the entire cosmos and this can only point to a Creator and not some random chance happenstance.
Also the helio theories DO NOT better explain observations and celestial movement. This is a LIE. You have simply never been taught about Tycho Brahe’s Geocentric system, from whom Kepler stole his calculations to fix his heliocentric system. You have simply never been told that Copernicus system failed entirely and had more epicycles than Ptolemy’s making it a more complicated mess, and even that Ptolemy was aware of his system’s shortcomings and thus only included certain planet’s distances as variables to be corrected by better data which when done held up very well. You have never been told that even NASA utilizes two frameworks the SCI (Sun Centered Inertial Frame) and the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial Frame), that the ECI is easier to work with and that the SCI often has to be corrected by appealing to the ECI.
There is a heck of a lot more that can be said. But you’ve bought into the NeoCath interpretation of the Galileo Affair that tries to harmonize Catholicism with Modernism. The Church absolutely ruled against Heliocentrism as formal Heresy. As being CONTRARY to the Scriptures and to the Consensus of the Church Fathers who ALL OF THEM held to Geocentrism, even against their heliocentric opponents of their own day, something they inherited from the Apostles and from the Jewish Traditions and plain readings of Scripture which speak of the Sun and Moon as moving against an Earth that was fixed and being fixed in space made it a good analogy for the nature of God in the Pslams and who uses it as His footstool, which extends also to the Rock that shall not be moved – the Papacy.
If you wish to say the Fathers were wrong on interpreting the Scriptures unanimously as Geocentrists, then be prepared to kiss Tradition goodbye as the Church has always used them as the source for all its doctrines from the Eucharist to the Virgin Birth. Thus when they are in consensus about something concerning articles of faith and interpreting Scripture, then this meant Apostolic origin, and thus they are decreed to be Infallible by Trent and Vatican I. And even enforced as to their impostance by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus.
“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; 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.”
– Council of Trent, Session IV.
“But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures;
and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”
– Vatican Council I, Chapter II, Denz. 1788.
“…and, most of all, that they may understand that God has delivered the Holy Scriptures to the Church, and that in reading and making use of His Word, they must follow the Church as their guide and their teacher. St. Irenaeus long since laid down, that where the charismata of God were, there the truth was to be learnt, and that Holy Scripture was safely interpreted by those who had the Apostolic succession. His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” – Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus.
This is why Bellarmine and the Inquisition condemned Galileo’s propositions and why for over a hundred years such works were put on the Index, even when the Protestant/Atheistic consensus continued to grow.
“”It must also be pointed out that it was not merely “theologians” of the day who were teaching that the Earth’s position and immobility was part of the Scriptural revelation. It was mainly the popes and cardinals of the 1600s and 1700s. Bellarmine himself said: “Nor can one answer that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith.” Paul V assembled eleven cardinals who condemned the Copernicanism of Fr. Foscarini in 1615 as being “formally heretical.” Pope Urban VIII argued profusely with Galileo on the basis that heliocentrism was “opposed to Scripture” and finally decreed through his Holy Office that belief in the non-movement of the sun around the Earth was “formally heretical,” and by doing so made heliocentrism a belief that was against the faith.”” – Dr. Robert Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong, the Church was Right.
Protestants were divided into two camps. There were those like Newton who saw the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. Thus for him and likewise for men like Bruno and Neitzche, the unchaining of the Earth set motionless through space was anti-Catholic propaganda, and with good reason, because unlike neo-caths and VII apologists teach today, the Papacy really was exerting its power to censor and condemn heliocentrism, and these wise and saintly men did so because they understood what was going on, unlike the apologists you subscribe to today to uphold your belief in heliocentrism while condemning with your other hand as VII modernists, who see a need to update everything because the Church is getting mixed up in ‘matters beyond its competence’ so when psychology declares that homosexuality and transgenderism is a good thing, then who is the Pope to speak against science?
And there were likewise Protestants who understood the Traditional interpretation of Scripture in line with Catholics. No different than today. So that’s hardly an argument considering plenty of Protestants can even tell that Francis is full of it about ecumenism and adultery and immigration. Heck, even Muslims can tell you Francis doesn’t know what he’s saying when it comes to Islam.
So Tom A and other Sedes, the question should be thrown back at you, “Does the Pope have authority to teach on all matters? Including things that touch upon civil life and science and social affairs and economics? Do you obey the Vicar of Christ in all things?”
Or are the VII Popes right (including Pius XII) about Evolution, the Big Bang and Heliocentrism and Relativity over and above Genesis, Tradition, the Fathers, Trent, Vatican I, the 1600-1700 Papacies and Holy Office who upheld Geocentrism authoritatively and explained why even though clearly people today prefer to ignore what they said and believe Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers instead so that we can be Heliocentrists, Darwinists and commemorate the Reformation in Lund?
Of course this is where the current Sede logic comes into crisis, even though as I’ve said before the sede conclusions could potentially be correct. Because given the Church itself has upheld Geocentrism as far back as the 1700s, then means that no matter what side you fall on with regards with what the Earth is doing, either the Church erred from 33AD – 1700s by interpreting Scripture incorrectly, or the Church has from the 1800s – 2017 been interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
So it seems that in one way or another the Holy Spirit fell asleep at the wheel. And either the Church never existed at all, or it fell into apostasy circa the 1800s at the latest where now even the current Papal occupant is an open Darwinist, heliocentrist, Leftist environmentalist in direct succession continuing on from the logical slippery slope that led from the kowtowing to the scientific trends of yesteryear that led it to a new Vatican II hermeutic in Die Verbum where the Scriptures can be interpreted as only correct in vague ‘matters of salvation’ and not necessarily fact which is why Mueller even thinks the Resurrection could not have been recorded on video camera because it was more some odd thing that occurred in our hearts and the Gospels should be understood this way.
So did the Church end a long time ago in one of two ways according to the Sede logic that is currently being utilized? Or is there more to the picture? Does God in His judgment allow for error to infest the members of the Church, including the Pope, but being in a state of invincible ignorance of diabolical disorientation still mean they legitimately hold office? Is there a point where it is too much? Does the distinction between an Informal and a Formal Heretic matter? Should not this be established first before we declare who was Pope and who was not? Is it not a matter of Charity? Do not Apparitions and seers from Fatima to Our Lady of Revelation still not refer to even Popes as far as John Paul II as being the Holy Father? Should this not be taken into account? Was it not the Miracle of a moving Sun against a fixed Earth a major miracle of note in all this and does it not mean something considering as far back as Joshua such events served to reinforce the Church’s Teaching about Geocentrism being the proper interpretation of Scripture?
All this adds up, and therefore this means that the picture of how error infiltrates the Church and when Peter doubts and when and how the successors of Peter still are the successors of Peter gets a whole lot more complicated.
So as you can see it does matter. And I’d recommend everyone look into the Galileo Affair and Geocentrism again, because what you’ve been taught all this time to believe is true is certainly not true and it makes a heck of a difference!
Here’s one modernist arguing why it would be good for the Index to approve of heliocentrism – Because the Church is being laughed at and everybody’s doing it! Gee! I guess the world has moved on, the Church needed to change all the way back in 1743!
“…it is expedient in the present situation for the Index to remove that clause….To retain it does no good….Who among young people studying mathematics does not read Wolff’s Elements? Varenius’s Geography? The Introduction of Keill, of Musschenbroek, and of Madame du Châtelet? Who does not consult Chambers’s Dictionary? All these books mentioned so far have been republished in Italy; all are found in every bookshop of average stock; all are sold, bought, and lent. Who does not want to be informed about Newton’s system or does not have available the book of some Newtonian?….Shall we ensure that some qualification be inserted every few pages, using that single word ‘hypothesis’ as a panacea?…. Protestants are very deeply convinced of the falsity of the system of the motionless earth and of the existence to demonstrations to the contrary…with the intention of showing that in Rome there is the greatest ignorance of the most well known things or the blindest obstinacy. And so they exploit it…in connection with other points regarding either the interpretation of Scripture, or the definition of dogmas, or the understanding of Church Fathers….Thus, why should we not prevent them from doing so, and take away from them such a powerful weapon?”
– Lazzari, Intuitions of Physics.
So I guess while way back early Protestants, raised on the Catholic Traditions who once believed as the Catholics did of an immovable Earth, with the passage of time as always fell to the typical modernist progressions and fashions until they too became more modernist and then attacked the Church for holding articles of faith their own founders once did.
Funnily enough, even Newton admitted that Tycho’s system worked providing the Earth was at the center of the universe’s mass.
“In Proposition XI, Theorema XI, Newton adds: “That the common center of gravity of the Earth, the sun, and all the planets, is immovable. For that center either is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line; but if that center moved, the center of the world would move also, against the Hypothesis.””
“That the center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I). The Latin original is: Centrum systematis mundane quiescere. Hoc ab omnibus consessum est, dum aliqui terram, alii solem in centro systematis quiescere contendant. Videamus quid inde sequatur.”
But Newton was an anti-Catholic, and so presumed the Earth moved just to spite the Papacy. Years later, Catholic modernists and uninformed sedevacantists would prefer what Newton believed to the Papacy of the 1700s. Go figure…
Now that said, I understand that this topic is new to a lot of people who have not been exposed to it, and thus the fact that heliocentrism is believed by the vast majority of Catholics, even the sedevacantists is understandable and I attribute this to invincible ignorance and diabolical disorientation. Thus I would NEVER say that any of them are outside the Church, because the circumstances have made it such. This likewise extends even to the VII Papacies and priests and bishops and Novus Ordo goers.
Charity DEMANDS that at the very least they be confronted about these things and appreciable time be granted to them to come to terms with it. Nobody just magically falls away from the Church due to genuine misunderstandings about the Faith and that extends to the Pontiffs. Though even I agree that the situation with Francis reaches a more absurd degree of his credibility, none the less, time and correction are necessary before declaring him the Pope or not, for we are ALL prodigal sons who at some point were in a state of material heresy, neo-Catholicism, Novus Ordo-ism etc. etc.
So to an extent the VII crowd is correct when it says that people gradually convert and come to greater appreciation of the fullness of the Catholic faith. but wrong to use this fact as an excuse for relaxation of enforcing discipline and dogma especially against particular sinful behaviour and scandal.
“Newton in his third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s [Newton’s] propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees made by the Supreme Pontiffs against the movement of the earth.”
– Thomas Le Seur and François Jacquier, Franciscan Friars and Catholic editors of Newton’s Principia Mathematica 3 volume work published Geneva, disclaimer from the preface. 1739-1742 AD.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Isacco Newtono, PP. Thomæ Le Seur & Francisci Jacquier, Genevæ, MDCCXXXIX . Original Latin: “DECLARATIO: Newtonus in hoc tertio Libro Telluris motæ hypothesim assumit. Autoris Propositiones aliter explicari non poterant, nisi eâdem quoquè factâ hypothesi. Hinc alienam coacti sumus gerere personam. Cæterum latis a summis Pontificibus contra Telluris motum Decretis nos obsequi profitemur.” Above translation taken from Rev. William W. Roberts in The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, p. 53.
You asked of me the question, “So whose side are you on…?”. I am on the side of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, Who commanded that His Church will stand against the gates of hell until the end of time, as a matter of divine Revelation. Christ Jesus did not command that Peter and His Successors will remain until the end of time, rather His Church. Christ instituted His Papacy and as in accordance with His Will, the only authentic Vatican Council, that which occurred in the 19th century, taught that the Holy Roman Pontiff, “should” (suggestive) remain until the end of time and not that he “will” (definitive) remain until the end of time. The Vatican Council indeed could not have pronounced that the Papacy “will” remain until the end of time, as that would contradict the Holy Writ in 2 Thess 2: 7, and as Holy Tradition cannot exist in contradiction with the Holy Writ, we have the reality as Reality. The reality as deception can be found in the diatribe, “True or False Pope”, which implodes under its own weight of error on page 19 of the 700, where the authors have the unmitigated audacity to actually change the language of the Council. They accomplish this in a one word transfer, whereby they implant their word, “will”, and supplant the Holy Council’s word, “should”, which undermines their entire diatribe. 700 pages is brought down to nothing, nihilo, by their deception created by the transfer of one word.
In the end Johnno, we are not told how long the Church in this world will be without Her Pontiff, just that She will be as prophesied in 2 Thess 2, 7. The one, “he”, who holds the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, will hold the mystery of iniquity from doing so until, “only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. ” These truths are very hard and without the reception of the graces of fortitude and perseverance, they are simply untenable, as to be tolerable immanently, without the reception of those graces. We are in the end of Christendom, which would seem to also be the end of time as, “…he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”, as the Holy Roman Pontiff already has been, taken out of the way, in our time. This remains as it only can, as res ipsa loquitur. What comes next in the Holy Writ is most unsettling, as immanently understood, and that is what follows in verses 8-11:
”  And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,  Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,  And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:  That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. Amen. In caritas.
Johnno, I have not bought into the Helio camp or the relativity camp. I am sorry you got that impression. I am simply trying to explain that helio and geo are not de fide. The church never taught either as such. I do agree that it makes scriptural and theological sense that the earth is the center of the Universe since Christ himself incarnated himself on this rock. Science simply cannot prove either system. And yes, a true Pope can teach on all things. It sounds to me that you are trying to put geocentrism into the Deposit of Faith handed down by Christ to His Apostles. I do not ageee with that. I have asked you for magesterial papal teachings on this subject. So far, I have never read any. Practically everything else you say on the subject I agree with or am sympathetic to. But these are only my opinions. Especially the Einstien/Realitivity invention to explain motion of the earth.
Johhno, I looked into the geocentric argument many years ago and was quickly convinced that science was leading man astray and making assumptions abouy heliocentrism that they could not properly defend. So on that subject we agree. On the de fide issue. I simply do not see it as ever being taught as necessary to hold for salvation or to profess the Catholic faith. If a true Pope were to proclaim geocentrism, I would be the first to assent since in my opinion it makes theological and scriptural sense. And if you could show that the Church defected and taught error regarding heliocentrism, then I guess the See of Peter has been vacant more than we thought.