To repeat my ideas in briefer form, some cannot be seen as any kind of argument for geocentrism on the grounds they are perfectly compatible with geocentrism or heliocentrism. We also run into the problem that some of the quotes are inaccurate, like when it attributes to St. Clement the words of the Clementine Homilies, a work written well after his death falsely claiming to be written by him.Well,
This is a good point, and this may very well be the reality for some of these citations, I merely quoted them as an affront to my own point on the matter, though I did not look into the citation of each of them specifically.
But, some indeed are clearly geocentrist. The problem is, are they geocentrists because they see it as a matter of faith, or because that was just what was regarded as the accurate science at the time? Because if they weren't viewing this as a matter of faith, then the whole list of quotes becomes meaningless because it's just them utilizing what was believed by the scientists themselves at the time.
My post was mainly on Catholic Law, which at one point favored the geocentric position, it was not contending that one
has to follow geocentrism to be saved, but that it was a dogma at one time and is the general opinion of the Fathers, and as such it is favorable. It is similar to the matter of Marian apparitions, while apparitions such as Fatima are not per se dogmatically imposed on the faithful, Our Lady says that those who do not heed Her warnings will be in strife. It is not
required, but it is
favored by the Holy Office and by the Fathers.
David Palm asserts, in an argument that seems very strong to me, that the condemnations of heliocentrism were limited to the "extreme" heliocentrism of Galileo but did not extend to modern heliocentirsm:
To the extent that it specifically addresses a doctrinal point, the 1633 decree strictly addresses Copernicanism as a unity. Throughout, the decree addresses a singular doctrine/opinion which has two facets, an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth:
“the false doctrine [NB: singular] taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion”
“the false opinion [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun”
“the doctrine [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.”
“the doctrine [NB: singular]—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world”
Again, what the 1633 decree actually addresses is a singular doctrine/opinion which includes two points—notice that they are connected with the conjunction “and”, not “or” —viz., that that the sun is the immovable center of the universe and that the earth moves and is not the center of the universe.
This, I feel, is a cop-out, and a real problem of semantics. A strict reading of this passage would suggest that all views asserting Earth's motion are condemned, whether Copernican or otherwise, though I do see how it could
possibly be implied in a "contra strict-heliocentric" way, but it would not give much credence to the heliocentrists.
Indeed, the quote you offer from Bellarmine apparently has him also combine the two. "But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false." Bellarmine here, when describing the two, uses an "and" rather than an or, and then uses "is" (singular) to indicate this is the combined idea, not the two separately.
I also never stated that it was a dogma because of the 1616 Office condemnation, specifically the opposite: "Therefore, it is clear that the acts against the denial of geocentrism are not infallible but are the correct viewpoint of the Church. As I stated, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe
may be held, but the Church does not hold it. Though St. Robert Bellarmine stated that
Geocentrism was magisterially binding, it is not the case. However, even though it is not
de fide,
it is the constant, universal teaching of the Fathers, Saints, and Church, as seen above." Again, I said it may be held yet the Church does not herself hold such a position.
So, what would their opinions have been on the idea of the Earth going around the Sun but the Sun not being immobile? The original 1616 judgment against Galileo, as quoted in the 1633 declaration actually did treat them separately, and asserted:
"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 Holy Scripture.
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."
Now, "absurd and false philosophically" refers to science, and does reflect the prevailing scientific consensus at the time in favor of geocentrism (Galileo did not have the evidence that later heliocentrists had to make their case). But what matters for our purposes is the theological judgments. We may note that it asserts the idea that the Sun is the center of the universe and does not move is heretical. It does not say this about the Earth being mobile and not the center of the universe; while it considers it "erroneous" it does not declare it heretical.
In other words, at least according to this, to assert that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that the Earth moves, that it has a diurnal motion, while asserting the Sun is mobile and not the center of the universe, would not have been judged as heretical. And this non-heretical position just so happens to be the exact idea that modern science has, and indeed had already been adopted when the decrees against heliocentrism were being rescinded.
Thus even if these remarks of Bellarmine or those declarations from 1616 and 1633 were regarded as permanently binding and authoritative, they end up not declaring modern heliocentrism to be heretical, only the version espoused by Galileo, which has been completely abandoned.
Again, I do not argue that "these remarks of Bellarmine or those declarations from 1616 and 1633 were regarded as permanently binding and authoritative," but I do believe that it is the Church's stance on the matter. This seems, on Palm's part, to be an incredibly sad cop-out, attempting to cling onto a very small portion of the text, arguing over "and" and "or." Palm misses the mark because of this. While it may be that the Church did not condemn heliocentrism in its entirety, the Church holds geocentricity to be its position, as espoused by the Fathers [maybe not all, but not all of the Fathers preached salvation only among the Church]. If Jude is arguing for only geocentrists to be saved then that is on him, but I am not doing such a thing.
