The point to remember is that he was citing aristotle. Not adding his own opinion. St. Thomas was not noted for his glorious latin. It could go either way here. It is more than likely just bad latin. Because it is clearly part of what should be a subjunctive clause. He was using the indicative, and you are imposing your error of globe thought on this.

I am not imposing anything.  I am understanding the Latin to mean what it actually says.  You are the imposing your assumptions to accuse St. Thomas of writing such bad Latin that it changes his intended meaning.

And he was not "citing Aristotle".  If you compare the passage against what Aristotle wrote, it is clearly not a quote.  St. Thomas was using his own words.

New errors are condemned all the time.

The Church could add globe earth to that list. Especially considering the Fathers were against it in the majority.

I think with all the evidence out there now, theological and scientific, globe earthers are probably material heretics.

In order to make spherical earth a heresy, the Church would have to contradict the teaching given in Providentissimus Deus (and repeated by later popes).  It is virtually impossible that globe earth could ever become a heresy.

And I am not convinced that the majority of the Fathers were against globe earth.  The flat earther quote lists tend to include quotes that do not actually oppose globe earth.  Many of the passages are not understood correctly and/or taken out of context.  Genuine opposition to globe earth was considerably less than these lists try to show.

The Church could add globe earth to that list. Especially considering the Fathers were against it in the majority.

I think with all the evidence out there now, theological and scientific

.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological. 
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, what's more likely, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land?

I have no problem with Pope Leo's teaching being condemned. Just like the post conciliar popes will have all their encyclicals condemned.

It will probably be left alone because it is so vague anyway.


I'll let others decide for themselves about the truth of your remarks against the Fathers.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

.
Don't you think you'd be much happier in your loony bin forum with your wacked-out co-conspirators?
.
Why do you torture yourself by coming here when you know you're not making any difference?

;D

You don't believe the earth rotates. By that standard you deny science and also are a whacked out conspiracy theorist.
:D

In order to make spherical earth a heresy, the Church would have to contradict the teaching given in Providentissimus Deus (and repeated by later popes).  It is virtually impossible that globe earth could ever become a heresy.

And I am not convinced that the majority of the Fathers were against globe earth.  The flat earther quote lists tend to include quotes that do not actually oppose globe earth.  Many of the passages are not understood correctly and/or taken out of context.  Genuine opposition to globe earth was considerably less than these lists try to show.

Wow.  So Providentissimus Deus teaches earth is a globe?  

No, PD does not teach that the earth is a globe.  It teaches principles of Scripture interpretation, including this passage:

The mistaken idea that the Bible teaches flat earth depends on taking certain verses as literal teaching about the essential nature of the visible universe.  In other words, one must do the exact opposite of the principle taught by the Church in the quote above.  

For flat earth to be made a doctrine and spherical earth a heresy, the Church would need to get rid of this principle and oblige Catholics to take literally the verses that she now encourages us to take figuratively.

Some flat earthers may claim to hold a Catholic position, but they appear to reject magisterial teaching on the interpretation of Scripture.  

Now now, this is disingenuous.  We all know that this rendition is not the oldest version of PD and is inaccurate, but we also know that Scripture is not to be interpreted other than the literal unless there is a reason.  Also, you leave out things that you know won't serve your case as PD also states:

"A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack.

The Holy Fathers “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth — who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,”³⁹ the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation.

But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine — not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;

But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics — and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labor."



PD reiterates and condemns those who depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture... and further sneers at those who have recourse to the works of non-Catholics for their contempt of the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance.

Your trajectory against flat earth has led you to offend the teachings of PD while you have the nerve to quote PD against us in pretense that we're saying Scripture is a science book.  No one is saying anything of the kind, those were YOUR words.  We are saying the literal and obvious sense of Scripture is true, as PD so eloquently reiterated. So, unless you are ignorant of it, or just contemptuous, Scripture describes a flat earth in passages throughout the book and NEVER describes a globe.