.
What you have said here is partially true, and partially false.
.
No, it's entirely true.
The Church doesn't define reality that we can verify by objective observation.
Things like the depth of the sea, or the limits of the sun's northern or southern declination each year, for example.
But the Church DOES define reality in spiritual matters, such as the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into heaven.
So to say "the Church doesn't define any kind of reality" is incorrect.
One more time for the obtuse: the Church does not DEFINE REALITY. That's a nonsense. Reality is what it is; the doctrine of the Assumption expresses a fact regarding an event that actually occured and had occured long before that doctrine was defined. You seem to have a problem with comprehending semantics here. As I stated, and stated correctly, the Church defines true propositions about that reality which have been revealed by God.
REALITY is not a suitable object of the action of DEFINING. Words, terms, concepts, statement about reality - these are objects for definition.
The dimensions of Solomon's temple is not something that can be verified because the temple no longer exists.
The dimensions of Solomon's Temple are known with certainty, barring some typorgraphic error that may have come down in transcription, because they are revealed in the inerrant word of God. You appear to be denying that inerrancy, which is heresy.
If the temple were still existing, the Church wouldn't declare that its dimensions are other than what can be observed.
Because if the Temple were still standing its dimensions would conform exactly to what the Bible states they are.
Objective observation is its own reality, by the way.
Again: "objective observation" is a contradiction in terms. Observations are, in principle, subjective. Stop wasting my time. Of course everything within the experiential field of the subject is it "own reality"; that's a vacuous tautology.
There are those who deny the evidence of direct personal eyewitness.
Thanks to Hegel, Locke, Hume, Comte, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche and their ilk, we have no shortage of deniers of observation.
When people address me like this, I'm just going to repeat myself: the notion that a “physical reality” - by which really meant a theoretical model abstracted from sense experience, thus based not only upon uncertain data but upon projecting conceptual fantasies into that data in order to postulate the existence of a world lying behind the content of sense experience - the notion that this process - of the blind grasping in the dark for a cat that might not exist at all - could take precedence over divine assurance of truth is preposterous.
Surely you grasp the distinction that is made IN YOUR OWN ONTOLOGY (not in mine) between the content of your experience and the objective reality of the abstract atomistic "matter" and mechanism of physics which you all postulate as the reductive cause of that experience.
I hope that's not what is infecting your perception!
Please don't talk about an infection of perception while attacking others for questioning the nature of what has been derived from perceptions.