Baronius is NOT Galileo

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Catholic Answers | 3 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyfwnmlH18w

3:49 No, he is not describing his amazement at the world God has made, he is conveying it by describing sth else, namely the world that God has made ... if he's incorrect, that's as bad as if St. Paul in Romans 1, verses 19 and 20 is wrong about what the world actually shows.

There is a good reason to take that too as a geocentric text. You see, the flagellum of bacteria and the complexity of DNA definitely do show what St. Paul speaks of sth showing, but as they are very recent discoveries and not available in St. Paul's time, they do not fulfil the criterium of from the creation of the world — Geocentrism, if we take the prima facie view of day and night, and of seasons, actually does fulfil that. Riccioli identified it as Prima Via, except he rejected it, since he attributed the "daily motion" to a harmony between "daily motionS" of angels moving celestial bodies through empty space coordinates. Even if angels moving Sun around Earth in 24 h and Moon around Earth in 24:55 hours were true, rather than them going opposite way along the Zodiac while God Himself moves the totality, their harmony given the multiplicity of celestial bodies each with its own mover would require a unity of command.

4:34 If it's actually Earth that moves the other way around its axis, the Sun is less amazing and more inert.

So, if Heliocentrism is true, the praise is actually at least somewhat misplaced.

4:49 Basing his praise on his experience involves taking his experience at face value.

Being a Heliocentric means imagining he was wrong in so doing. Heliocentrism is the less Empirical view.

5:19 "Phenomenological language" is a term that:
a) usually leaves understood that the reality differs from the phenomenon, as Heliocentrics think Geocentric descriptions do;
b) would for that reason only apply to human descriptions, not to divine commands, including what God makes a miracle maker say at the doing of a miracle.

I'm not asking you to look at Joshua 10:13 which in human terms describes what happened. I'm asking you to look at Joshua 10:12, where Joshua on God's behalf adresses what needs to miraculously behave differently. Words directly inspired by the Creator and Lord of all the things involved. If God had "known" it is really Earth that turns around itself, Joshua would either not have worded God's command that way, but adressed Earth instead, or he would not have been given the miracle. Otherwise, the miracles of Joshua and later Isaias would stand alone in being miracles adressed to totally different beings than the ones really involved in it.

6:50 I very highly doubt you can trace that quote back to Baronius.

I think the real man behind the quote is Galileo, in his letter to Grand Duchess Christina.

Pius XII did not condemn political Christianity in Mit brennender Sorge. Pius XI in Mit brennender Sorge condemned un-Christian practises. And total rebooting of the content of religious terminology, way beyond just "political Christianity" ... that it was Cardinal Pacelli who penned it doesn't mean it was not Pius XI who did the condemnations, as he was still alive and still Pope.

Equally, you seem happy to misquote Galileo as Baronius.

6:53 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina is indeed probably from 1615. It is also by Galileo.

By 1615, Baronius was already dead since 8 years ago, before the Galileo controversy. He died in 1607.

Historical accuracy is not your forte.

Appendix, to disculpate Trent Horn of total ignorance:

It seems Galileo in the letter did mention the quote as from a highly placed Church man.

It also seems the man is often accepted as being Cardinal Baronius.

There was an essay on this by one Edoardo Aldo Cerrato, and it was apparently translated to English by Father Tim Deeter.

However, in that essay, the words quoted are stated in Galileo's letter to Christina, and here are the words:

“It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go”

1) While Cardinal is indeed a very eminent position, the words "Churchman" and "has been elevated to" suggest the Churchman was still alive, this was in 1615 however not the case with Baronius — did Galileo express himself in a way that seems clunky to me, or did he not know Baronius had meanwhile died? Or could he have meant someone else?
2) If it was Baronius, he was quoted after c. 8 years after the hearing of the words, and Galileo could have forgotten context. Or it could have been even earlier on that Galileo had heard this from Baronius. The thing is, back then Galileo would not have come out as a Heliocentric or even been one. He could have based his views on a misunderstanding of Baronius. I'm trying to reach Cerrato or Fr Deeter to get more detail.