It just seems a bit inconsistent, even hypocritical, to dismiss the opinions of the Church Fathers regarding the Genesis account of creation due to supposed "advancements" in science but then claim it's consistent "Catholic teaching" that the earth is a sphere.

There is nothing at all inconsistent in my views.  You are misrepresenting them.

The earliest centuries of Church history were a time when key doctrines were still being defined, the canon of Scripture was not completely set, and there were many points of disagreement among Church Fathers.  This is the context of a few Fathers teaching the earth is flat.  The traditional Catholic flat earth site is able to come up with four (as I recall) Fathers.  There was no consensus among the Fathers on this.  This is not only the understanding of historians, but the teaching of St. John Damascene. When there is no consensus there is no reason to consider it part of Church teaching.  This is the reason that I dismiss the opinions of those few Fathers who taught flat earth.  It has nothing to do with advancements in science.

What actually did become part of Church teaching was St. Augustine's view that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth.  The standard Catholic interpretation of Scripture passages that some think support flat earth is that these things are figurative.  This is why modern belief in flat earth spread primarily among believers in the sola Scriptura heresy. That there are now some Catholics supporting it is a phenomenon I attribute to the crisis in the Church.

Once St. Augustine's idea was accepted, all Catholics treated the question of the shape of the earth as a matter of science.  St. Bede taught, as a matter of science, that the earth is a sphere and his writing on this was widely dispersed. It seems to have been the accepted scientific position throughout Christendom from this time forward.  Once the Catholic university system developed, all students were taught, as a matter of science, that the earth is a sphere.  The greatest Catholic minds, like St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine, accepted and taught that the earth is a sphere, as a matter of science.

I have never claimed that spherical earth was "Catholic teaching" in the sense of a Church teaching concerning faith.  I have been saying that historically Catholics taught and believed this, as a matter of science, ever since St. Bede, with virtually no exceptions.  And that is what I believe too.  The medieval case for spherical earth still seems like good science to me.  And I want to be on the same side as Doctors of the Church, not people like Dubay and Rowbotham.

Your story is bunk.  Just because two people, 500 years apart, used the word “sphere”, one of whom didn’t explain what he meant, you say it’s a “consistent teaching”.    Ridiculous!

You should be ashamed for comparing St Bede with a heliocentric, Islam-loving infiltrator.

Yes, and Jayne would have us believe that a ball earth was universally and consistently taught in the Catholic universities, but I don't believe this. And thus, since it was supposedy universally taught in universities, it was something that all Catholics everywhere believed. As if universities have always and everywhere been who Catholics look to teach the Faith, rather than local churches and dioceses. And I don't believe that the shape of the earth was something that was discussed a great deal at the universities.

What percentage of Catholics have attended universities before the 20th century? Very few. I doubt that the influence of the universities was greater than the authority of the Church (well, before the age of Modernism, anyway). And where did modernism get its start? Partly through the universities?

Where did I require that everyone must accept that the earth is a sphere?  People are free to follow the science and reach whatever conclusions can be supported by reason.  They may not, however, claim that flat earth was the main position among Catholics in the past (an idea fabricated by anti-Catholics) because that is a lie.

You insinuate that there is a requirement, since it was the Doctors of the Church whom you say universally taught the ball earth (I don't agree that they universally taught this), and that's what we should believe.

You insinuate that there is a requirement, since it was the Doctors of the Church whom you say universally taught the ball earth (I don't agree that they universally taught this), and that's what we should believe.

You seem incapable of correctly representing my views.  Perhaps you could refrain from making statements about what I think.  

I mentioned some specific Doctors of the Church who taught the earth is sphere, as a matter of science.  Since they were not teaching it as a matter of faith, it is not at all binding on Catholics. 

There is nothing at all inconsistent in my views.  You are misrepresenting them.

This is the context of a few Fathers teaching the earth is flat.  The traditional Catholic flat earth site is able to come up with four (as I recall) Fathers.  There was no consensus among the Fathers on this.  This is not only the understanding of historians, but the teaching of St. John Damascene. When there is no consensus there is no reason to consider it part of Church teaching.  This is the reason that I dismiss the opinions of those few Fathers who taught flat earth.  It has nothing to do with advancements in science.
...
I have never claimed that spherical earth was "Catholic teaching" in the sense of a Church teaching concerning faith.  I have been saying that historically Catholics taught and believed this, as a matter of science, ever since St. Bede, with virtually no exceptions.  And that is what I believe too.  The medieval case for spherical earth still seems like good science to me.  And I want to be on the same side as Doctors of the Church, not people like Dubay and Rowbotham.

With regard to the first statement, there was no consensus one way or another among the Fathers about the shape of the earth.  That leaves it an open question.  Nevertheless, I recall your arguing at one point (from Leo XIII) that even if there WERE a consensus among the Fathers about something scientific, well, since it's science, it could be mistaken.  But in either case, the point is that this is not a matter of doctrine, but of science ... except perhaps some details, like the firmament, which all the Fathers unequivocally believed in, since it's clearly taught in Sacred Scripture.  Do you believe that there's a solid firmament above the earth?

You did refer to spherical earth as Catholic teaching, but then added the qualification that it's not "dogmatic".  My point is that it's not Catholic teaching in any sense, dogmatic or otherwise.  Historically, SOME Catholics believed this.  Even above you say that Catholics "taught" this.  No, they didn't "teach" this.  Xavier here does the same thing, use the term "teach" loosely.  But when we speak of Catholic "teaching", that has a different sense than if, say, a Catholic were "teaching" a science class in school vs. Catholic "teaching" in the strict sense, so it's important to distinguish.

I want to be on the side of TRUTH, God's truth.  I want to know how God created our world and what He created.  You falsely frame this debate as "Doctors" vs. Dubay.  This isn't just Dubay and Rowbotham.  I actually have a collection of several dozen books (I acquired in PDF form) of scientists arguing that the earth is flat.  It's not to be "against" the Doctors to say that their knowledge of science was mistaken.  St. Thomas was mistaken based on his incorrect scientific perspective regarding the Immaculate Conception.  Fathers and Doctors (except perhaps for St. Robert Bellarmine) did not have telescopes or other scientific instruments with which to conduct experiments.  Most likely the Doctors were following Aristotle, due to their respect for him, but Aristotle's major proof for the spherical earth was boats disappearing bottom-up over the "horizon" when that is clearly shown to be mistaken with simple cameras today like the P900.  When those boats "disappear" you need simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view.  This technology is now available to the "masses" and THAT is the biggest reason for the resurgence of Flat Earth.  Most people start looking at the subjet with skepticism, but when they actually see the evidence, they're almost forced to come to that conclusion.  Were it not for the actual evidence, 95% of people who are now Flat Earthers would have rejected the idea as lunacy, given the programming we've been subjected to.

Overall, my reasons for believing (in my mind, knowing) that the earth is flat are scientific ... except the parts that Sacred Scripture clearly teaches.  Holy Spirit is in fact the author of Scripture, and He clearly tells us that there's a firmament above the planet.  He also teaches us that God made the sun and the moon AFTER He made the earth and after He made light.  So this invalidates most of modern science in general.  He teaches us that God made man from the dust of the earth ... about 6,000 years ago.  It can be debated whether the rest of creation took exactly 7 days or were more 7 periods of time or were instant, but anyone who holds that human beings have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, even millions of years, they are heretics, rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture.  Do you believe that or do you try to leverage Leo XIII to claim that human beings have been around much longer because Scripture didn't "mean" to teach us about science?

but Aristotle's major proof for the spherical earth was boats disappearing bottom-up over the "horizon" when that is clearly shown to be mistaken with simple cameras today like the P900.  When those boats "disappear" you need simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view.

It appears with this wind farm, you can't "simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view".



And here's one of those "long-distance" photos that "proves" the earth is flat. Watch to the end.

Wow, 24 pages. Truly, if you want to upset people tell them you think the earth is flat.

It appears with this wind farm, you can't "simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view".

Uhm, he didn't even TRY to zoom in.  He just showed a 2-second looping video at a specific magnification (admitted as such with a caption), whatever that was.  Those things  didn't look that tall, and the image of the rotating blade above the water could have been some kind of reflection, since the blades looked MUCH LARGER than they would actually have looked at 29 nautical miles (I think that's what he said).  In fact, each blade was much larger than the ship that was much closer.  Most likely it's due to some reflection with the atmospheric condtiions.  There was absolutely nothing scientific about this.

You cherry pick this one but ignore the HUNDREDS of others where the person gave precise measurements, showed the math, calculated atmospheric conditions (in various places around the world), etc.  There are literally hundreds of videos out there showing precisely that.  Oops a boat disappears.  Now zoom in.  Oh, it's back.  This guy in the video just showed one perspective, no zooming.

So the fact that you cherry pick this one and ignore the hundreds of others showing the exact opposite simply shows your intellectual dishonesty.