It should have been drawn like this, so it really doesn't matter if the earth is curved or flat.That makes no sense. If the earth is a ball, and ship A is at the top of the ball (i.e. close to the US) and ship B is at the bottom of the ball (i.e. China), how can both ships be equally distant from the same star?
That makes no sense. If the earth is a ball, and ship A is at the top of the ball (i.e. close to the US) and ship B is at the bottom of the ball (i.e. China), how can both ships be equally distant from the same star?If the star can be seen from both the US and China, and it is half way between the two and high enough in the air where the curve would not matter, then it could be equally distant. And when we are talking about celestial navigation it is more about what it looks like then actual distances. The person does not need to know exactly how far the star is to make the navigation work.
If the star can be seen from both the US and China, and it is half way between the twoWhat if it's NOT halfway between the two? That's my question.
And when we are talking about celestial navigation it is more about what it looks like then actual distances. The person does not need to know exactly how far the star is to make the navigation work.:facepalm: The distance of the star, determines where it is in relation to the horizon, as you describe below.
"A star chart functions in navigation by providing a visual map of the night sky, allowing navigators to identify specific stars and measure their position relative to the horizon,The north star, for example, doesn't move. So this star will be in DIFFERENT positions on the horizon (using a globe model), if you're in the US vs China (i.e. china can't see the north star). But if the earth were a spinning globe, everyone should be able to see the north star, at some point during the day, because a) the north star doesn't move and b) the spinning earth would be a like a clock which would round every number, at some point during the day.
This is why most calculations are done as if the earth is flat because it is just easier to do the calculation.No, it's because the globe calcs don't make sense.
If the star can be seen from both the US and China, and it is half way between the two
And when we are talking about celestial navigation it is more about what it looks like then actual distances. The person does not need to know exactly how far the star is to make the navigation work.
"A star chart functions in navigation by providing a visual map of the night sky, allowing navigators to identify specific stars and measure their position relative to the horizon,
Yes and everything has to be recalculated throughout the trip because the sky changes over head as you move in one direction.No, that's the point. Not everything in the sky changes. The north star, in the northern hemisphere, NEVER moves. The constellations do move, which is why there are various constellations at various times of the year.
The north star, for example, doesn't move. So this star will be in DIFFERENT positions on the horizon (using a globe model), if you're in the US vs China (i.e. china can't see the north star). But if the earth were a spinning globe, everyone should be able to see the north star, at some point during the day, because a) the north star doesn't move and b) the spinning earth would be a like a clock which would round every number, at some point during the day.No, the Sphere earth spins like a top AND ALSO spins like a rolling ball. It spins in all directions, as it rotates around the sun. If it only spun like a top (i.e. left to right) then some countries would never get sunshine.
This statement confuses me. The Sphere Earth if it is spinning, spins like a top.
If the Earth was flat then it would be like a sandwich with the stars on top and the Earth on the bottom. The stars would not change position. So Orions belt would always be in the same place in the sky no matter what time of day. Yet is is not. Something is moving.The constellations revolve around the earth. The north star does not move.
A FE model will show the north star in the exact, same spot on the horizon, no matter where you are in the world. Because everyone is looking up. That's why china can't see the north star. Because the earth doesn't move.Because the north star is much, much closer to earth than we're told. It's not "billions of light years" away. I'm not sure why China cannot see the North star, but it's a fact.
This statement confuses me. If the north star is always in the same spot, then why would China not see it, if the Earth is flat?
If the Earth was flat then it would be like a sandwich with the stars on top and the Earth on the bottom. The stars would not change position. So Orions belt would always be in the same place in the sky no matter what time of day. Yet is is not. Something is moving.Does the Earth not moving mean it is flat? I am not sure that the belief in shape, leads to a decision about the movement.
The inteferometer experiments of Michelson-Morley showed the earth was not moving. They were later run again by Michelson-Gale, and later Sagnac also, which showed a daily rotation so yes, something is definitely moving but the evidence shows it's the star field around a fixed earth.
Does the Earth not moving mean it is flat? I am not sure that the belief in shape, leads to a decision about the movement.
Does the Earth not moving mean it is flat? I am not sure that the belief in shape, leads to a decision about the movement.The classical models (e.g. Aristotle, Ptolemy) had a stationary, globe earth. This was what Catholics believed for most of our history, although as a matter of science rather than faith.
The classical models (e.g. Aristotle, Ptolemy) had a stationary, globe earth. This was what Catholics believed for most of our history, although as a matter of science rather than faith.
No, that's the point. Not everything in the sky changes. The north star, in the northern hemisphere, NEVER moves. The constellations do move, which is why there are various constellations at various times of the year.The constellations move in relation to the North star. I can always find the North star because it is part of the little dipper. That never changes. The North star is not always in the same spot overhead at night.
No, the Sphere earth spins like a top AND ALSO spins like a rolling ball. It spins in all directions, as it rotates around the sun. If it only spun like a top (i.e. left to right) then some countries would never get sunshine.See above.
The constellations revolve around the earth. The north star does not move.
Because the north star is much, much closer to earth than we're told. It's not "billions of light years" away. I'm not sure why China cannot see the North star, but it's a fact.OK. But if you take a point in California and a point in China and measure the distance about (6000 miles). A star that they both saw would only have to be 1804 miles above the earth.
The problem with these discussions is that, *I assume* you are arguing based on some type of geocentric model, but you're explaining/quoting sources (i.e. google) which are heliocentric. So your explanation is a hodge-podge of 2 diametrically opposed systems.I was just looking up how star maps were used. I was not making a claim for any type of cosomology. I am just saying the geometry is off, so I was trying to explain how.
The North star is not always in the same spot overhead at night.The north star is part of the big dipper and does not move.
Here is how star navigation works. The information comes from a google search.Ok, this is from a heliocentric point of view.
The Sphere Earth if it is spinning, spins like a top.This is certainly not a modern-science explanation. And it's not FE. So where does this come from?
A star that they both saw would only have to be 1804 miles above the earth.Modern science does not think that stars are only thousands of miles above earth. So your point aligns with FE, that stars are much closer.
I was not making a claim for any type of cosomology.That's why your posts are very confusing. You're mixing and matching sources. Hard to have a discussion.
The north star is part of the big dipper and does not move.The North Star, also known as Polaris, is located in the constellation Ursa Minor, which is commonly called the Little Dipper or Little Bear; it's situated at the end of the handle of the Little Dipper.
Does the Earth not moving mean it is flat? I am not sure that the belief in shape, leads to a decision about the movement.I personally believe in a stationary globe earth. I think that I remember from past polls that many other Cathinfo members also hold such to be true. :cowboy:
I personally believe in a stationary globe earth. I think that I remember from past polls that many other Cathinfo members also hold such to be true. :cowboy:I would have expected this to be the most common belief here, given the way it dominated the history of the Church. I have the impression the science support is pretty good too. The poster Cassini is an expert if anyone has questions.
Ok, this is from a heliocentric point of view.I apologize for the confusion, but discussing the cosmos isn't a simple matter.
This is certainly not a modern-science explanation. And it's not FE. So where does this come from?
Modern science does not think that stars are only thousands of miles above earth. So your point aligns with FE, that stars are much closer.
That's why your posts are very confusing. You're mixing and matching sources. Hard to have a discussion.
He is making a poor mathematical assumption.
We are not talking about distances we are only talking about the angle from where the ship is in relation to the star.
Look at what was drawn at :43. That is not how it should be drawn.
It should have been drawn like this, so it really doesn't matter if the earth is curved or flat. The geometry would work the same.
I would have expected this to be the most common belief here, given the way it dominated the history of the Church. I have the impression the science support is pretty good too. The poster Cassini is an expert if anyone has questions.
Since there is no Church teaching which requires us to believe that the earth is either a ball, or flat, we can still debate the subject. ..Good point. There used to be some posters who claimed Catholics were obliged to believe in Flat Earth (I think they were confused about the condemnation of Galileo ) That was really wrong.
Good point. There used to be some posters who claimed Catholics were obliged to believe in Flat Earth (I think they were confused about the condemnation of Galileo ) That was really wrong.
But I have to admit that am influenced by the knowledge that St Bede and St Thomas taught Globe Earth. Even though I know their teaching about science isn't binding, I just admire them so much.
I also think their arguments for it make sense. I'm not completely irrational. :jester:
What are the teachings or quotes showing that St. Bede and St. Thomas taught about the globe shaped earth?
Good point. There used to be some posters who claimed Catholics were obliged to believe in Flat Earth (I think they were confused about the condemnation of Galileo ) That was really wrong.
But I have to admit that am influenced by the knowledge that St Bede and St Thomas taught Globe Earth. Even though I know their teaching about science isn't binding, I just admire them so much.
I also think their arguments for it make sense. I'm not completely irrational. :jester:
I don't know about St. Bede, but St. Thomas did believe in a ball earth; I recall seeing it, but can't remember where, it may have been the Summa.
I think that he was likely influenced by his mentor, St. Albert, who also believed in a ball earth. As Jayne said, it (their belief on the subject) isn't binding. Saints can be wrong, especially when it comes to science.
What are the teachings or quotes showing that St. Bede and St. Thomas taught about the globe shaped earth?St. Thomas only mentions it in passing in the Summa. He goes into detail in his commentary on Aristotles' main work on cosmology. Both are called De Caelo. St. Thomas is quite explicit in his agreement with Aristotle, saying both that it is true the earth is a globe and that it is false to claim that the earth is flat. St. Bede wrote about it De temporum Ratione (The Reckoning of Time). He drew extensively from the writings of Pliny.
‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’ (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999), p. 91).
I've found the opposite information from the Fathers, so globe quotes from any notables would make it helpful to support such claims. As far as discernable, from both secular and Catholic positions, the Hebrew view of the earth was largely held by all saints and Fathers at least until the Copernican Revolution, which, as the name advertises, was an upheaval and overthrow of the original belief in a flat stationary earth.
Yes, some posters have claimed that Catholics are obliged to believe in a flat earth, but that's been quite a few years ago, I think.
It may have been wrong, but ball earthers have argued the same, though not in actual words to that effect. Rather they argue as if we are all obliged to believe in a ball earth.
I'm pleased to see that this is no longer the case. That was a seriously wrong position.
Nobody said that back when I followed discussions on the topic here. Are you thinking of the argument that , since the Church teaches that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth, it is wrong to argue for it from Scripture and one should only use science?
I've found the opposite information from the Fathers, so globe quotes from any notables would make it helpful to support such claims. As far as discernable, from both secular and Catholic positions, the Hebrew view of the earth was largely held by all saints and Fathers at least until the Copernican Revolution, which, as the name advertises, was an upheaval and overthrow of the original belief in a flat stationary earth.
They didn't say in in so many words. It was the idea that no one should be allowed to believe in a flat earth that was the problem. As you well know, since you were one of those forum members.
I remember there was at least one poster who was quite abrasively insistent that it was wrong and stupid to believe in flat earth. That really isn't the same as saying it isn't allowed. My own position was that it should only be discussed as a matter of science and not Scripture. But that is not saying that it should not be allowed at all. Obviously, if there is a good case from science for it, it should be allowed. That is how science works.
That's not how I recall those debates. You were extremely anti-flat earth. And not very charitable about it. I doubt that your views have changed. Mine certainly haven't. So if you want to rehash this topic, I am willing to do so, but you won't change my mind on the subject.Our recollections of these past discussions are quite different. I remember people commenting on me being a reasonablbe and polite proponent of globe earth. And I find it hard to imagine that I would have said I believed in evolution.
I also recall that you once said that you believe in evolution, or a modified version of it. Is that still true?
Our recollections of these past discussions are quite different. I remember people commenting on me being a reasonablbe and polite proponent of globe earth. And I find it hard to imagine that I would have said I believed in evolution.
But I think you have quite modern ideas, and you seem to think that others here should too.
St. Thomas only mentions it in passing in the Summa. He goes into detail in his commentary on Aristotles' main work on cosmology. Both are called De Caelo. St. Thomas is quite explicit in his agreement with Aristotle, saying both that it is true the earth is a globe and that it is false to claim that the earth is flat. St. Bede wrote about it De temporum Ratione (The Reckoning of Time). He drew extensively from the writings of Pliny.
https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2018/05/the-earth-is-in-fact-round.html (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2018/05/the-earth-is-in-fact-round.html)
There were anti-Catholic authors who wrote books that claimed this, but they are now recognized for their bias and dishonesty. I hope you weren't using them for a source.
When Bede talks about the world, because it was common to his time, he is talking about all of creation.How would that make sense in the quote?
The teachings come from the saints themselves and they source their views in Scripture. Although some anti-Catholics reference the saints in order to make them look stupid for being flat earthers, when that happens, it seems the anti-Catholic is doing Catholics a service.
Believing the earth is a globe is not, however, a modern idea. It was the scientific consensus of Catholics throughout the middle ages. Of course, I see nothing strange about traditional Catholics continuing to think this.
How would that make sense in the quote?
‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’
He is explaing why the same days have unequal length. This is a well-known argument for globe earth.
|
You've never been able to prove that all Catholics believed in a ball earth through the middle ages. Some of the universities taught this, but so what.
No flat earther here has produced any evidence of any Catholic who believed in flat earth after Cosmas wrote about it around 550 AD. In contrast, there is lots of evidence that globe earth was the consensus position in the middle ages. It is theoretically possible that there were some exceptions somewhere, but no reason, other than wishful thinking, to believe this.
It is reasonable enough to argue from science for flat earth but it is not reasonable to deny that globe earth was the historic belief of Catholics for most of the existence of the Church.
He is presumably alluding to Isaiah 40:22 which in the Vulgate is: " qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum"
Would you happen to have the full contextual source of the quote? To see it in context would enable everyone to be assured of his position on the matter. The fact that he sources Scripture immediately shows he does not believe the earth is a globe. Scripture does not refer to the earth as the orb of the world so that quote is either incorrect, or it is mistranslated.
...since the Church teaches that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth, it is wrong to argue for it from Scripture and one should only use science?
I do deny it. But I'm not going to try to prove to you otherwise. I'm not a dogmatic FE'er, even though you are a dogmatic ball earther.
Didn't you once say that you have a theology degree, from a novus ordo university?
The Scripture isn't really silent on the shape (or immobility) of the earth.This was taught by both St Augustine and St. Basil. This was clearly accepted by all the medieval authors who wrote about the earth being a globe, since they would not have wanted to go against Scripture. Later, the St. Augustine passage was quoted by Leo XIII in the encylical Providentissimus Deus. That makes it Church teaching.
It is reasonable enough to argue from science for flat earth but it is not reasonable to deny that globe earth was the historic belief of Catholics for most of the existence of the Church.
He is presumably alluding to Isaiah 40:22 which in the Vulgate is: " qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum"
The Douay-Rheims translates this: "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" but "orb of the world" would also be correct.
There is some ambiguity about the word gyrum in isolation. This may be why St. Bede clarified by saying " It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’
No we don't know that. People knowledgeable about the middle ages know that the Ptolemaic model (globe earth, geocentric) was the consensus of educated Catholics and probably the uneducated too. This was the model Galileo was arguing against.
Although it's hard to say anything about what percentages of Catholics believed regarding the shape of the earth throughout the centuries, we know beyond argument that the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews was never seriously contradicted until Galileo.
But we do not need to rely on translations to know what St. Bede meant. He was very clear: "It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’
You are right that the Douay-Rheims translates gyrum as "globe". But translations aren't 100%.
https://youtu.be/tejB8pFOYD8?si=t8IDbajIkVmrvnHEI think this video got lost in the shuffle. I think he made some good mathematical points.
No we don't know that. People knowledgeable about the middle ages know that the Ptolemaic model (globe earth, geocentric) was the consensus of educated Catholics and probably the uneducated too. This was the model Galileo was arguing against.We have other information to show Galileo fought the Scriptural model which was a flat geocentric earth. We know this is true because St. Robert Bellarmine makes it clear that they aren't arguing on scientific principles, but Scriptural. Galileo's model denied the model in Scripture.
We have other information to show Galileo fought the Scriptural model which was a flat geocentric earth. We know this is true because St. Robert Bellarmine makes it clear that they aren't arguing on scientific principles, but Scriptural. Galileo's model denied the model in Scripture.
Scripture isn't really silent on the shape (or immobility) of the earth. In Job its shape is described as being squashed (flattened) like under a clay seal. I'm not a 100% flatter but I can say, the more I look the flatter it gets.Is all science in the Bible? The Bible does not talk about cars or airplanes, bombs or guns, fireworks or electricity, viruses or bacteria. Humans as they progressed through history made discoveries, tried things out, and learned different things. The Church held its hand per se during these times, it cautioned people, checked to make sure it wasn't against God and continued research and study and invented things that were maybe only dreams centuries before. This continues today, but with no direction from the Church, so now we have this great diabolic disorientation. If we are able to discover things of the earth, why not things of the sky?
(https://i.imgur.com/k9XKEyB.png)
If we are able to discover things of the earth, why not things of the sky?
We do not have any such information. The condemnation of Galileo said nothing about globe earth. Tycho Brahe's model, which included a globe earth, was not condemned. St. Robert himself was a university astronomy professor, which means that he taught globe earth.
I suspect that you "know" these things becaue you have relied on anti-Catholic sources.
But we have many times. Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, Airy, Hubble's red shift showing we occupy pretty much dead center in the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background on three occasions (which produced 'the Axis of Evil' also showing we occupy the center of the universe). These tests have been repeated numerous times all with the same result - no movement of the earth. The bible also happens to state this.Right with Einstein's relativity space understanding fell apart. I don't disagree with Earth as the center of the universe. I do think God is predictable though and if the planets appear as spheres then earth should appear as a sphere. The video I posted in #23 and #55 shows how math shows that the earth curves. Please view it and let me know your thoughts.
What's really amazing is how 'science' got around the MM experiments - the machine had to be physically shrinking (yep) at just the exact rate to make it show the earth wasn't moving. Amazing indeed. Einstein popped out Relativity and the rest is history.
No we don't know that. People knowledgeable about the middle ages know that the Ptolemaic model (globe earth, geocentric) was the consensus of educated Catholics and probably the uneducated too. This was the model Galileo was arguing against.False dichotomy. The Ptolemaic/geocentric model of the solar system, does not exclude the possibility of flat land.
I do think God is predictable though and if the planets appear as spheres then earth should appear as a sphere.Horrible assumption. Chimpanzee's share 98.8% of similar DNA to humans, but 1) chimpanzees don't have immortal souls, free will or reason. 2) Most humans don't fling poo at each other and live in trees.
False dichotomy. The Ptolemaic/geocentric model of the solar system, does not exclude the possibility of flat land.Show me the science that supports that. If the land was flat and presents like a pizza, what is the diameter of Earth?
Again, for the 1,000x, the earth. is. a. globe. It is a globe because the firmament and oceans below the land form a sphere. But the land itself is flat. Globe earth/flat land.
Just like this model shows....
(https://i.imgur.com/qTWXOt3.jpeg)
Or this one....
(https://i.imgur.com/FBppLQa.png)
The video I posted in #23 and #55 shows how math shows that the earth curves. Please view it and let me know your thoughts.
Show me the science that supports that. If the land was flat and presents like a pizza, what is the diameter of Earth?
False dichotomy. The Ptolemaic/geocentric model of the solar system, does not exclude the possibility of flat land.
The Almagest ([color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]/ˈælmədʒɛst/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]AL-mə-jest[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is a 2nd-century [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]mathematical[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mathematics) and [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]astronomical[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_astronomy) treatise on the apparent motions of the [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]stars[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) and [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]planetary[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet) paths, written by [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Claudius Ptolemy[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) (c. AD 100 – c. 170) in [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Koine Greek[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek).[color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest#cite_note-FOOTNOTETomarchio2022xv-1)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] One of the most influential scientific texts in history, it canonized a [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]geocentric model[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model) of the [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Universe[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) that was accepted for more than 1,200 years from its origin in Hellenistic [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Alexandria[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-era_Alexandria), in the medieval [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Byzantine[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine) and [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Islamic[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) worlds, and in Western Europe through the [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Middle Ages[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) and early [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Renaissance[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance) until [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Copernicus[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus).
Book I contains an outline of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Aristotle[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle)'s cosmology: on the spherical form of the heavens, with the spherical Earth lying motionless as the center, with the [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]fixed stars[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars) and the various [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]planets[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets) revolving around the Earth.
We do have information to prove that the Hebrew model of the earth, the Scriptural model, was the one that the Church defended precisely because it is the model in Scripture.
I watched that when it was posted in #23. What I find interesting about all of this is that there is actually enough for both sides to go on. One can say 'the math proves it' but then flat earthers have record breaking line-of-site tests, laser tests over 25 miles of open water, engineering and government works all using a flat based system, etc.Yes I am still trying to figure out how the line of site tests work. I just wish some trusted Catholic made a space ship and just went up into the air far enough so we could know for certain the shape of earth.
Another thing I was wondering about was a biblical firmament and then some guy posted a video of him reading from a 1956 US Encyclopedia saying the Firmament was detected in Antarctica around 13,000 feet. Pretty strange world out there.
Cecco was burned at the stake for his globe earth cosmology
Having published a commentary on the Sphere of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]John de Sacrobosco[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Sacrobosco), in which he propounded audacious theories concerning the employment and agency of demons, he got into difficulties with the clerical party, and was condemned in 1324 to certain fasts and prayers, and to the payment of a fine of seventy crowns. To elude this sentence he went to [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Florence[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence), where he was attached to the household of
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_di_Calabria)Carlo de Calabria. His pseudo-science and plain speaking had made him many enemies; he had attacked the Commedia of Dante, and the Canzone d'amore of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Guido Cavalcanti[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Cavalcanti).[color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecco_d'Ascoli#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChisholm1911-1)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] The physician [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Dino del Garbo[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_del_Garbo) was indefatigable in pursuit of him; and the old accusation of impiety being renewed, Cecco was again tried and sentenced for relapse into heresy. He was burned at Florence the day after the sentence, in his seventieth year.
but the Ptolemaic model is a specific geocentric model which is not compatible with it.Your original assertion was that that Ptolemaic model was a geocentric, globe earth model. But there are variations of this model. Just because the Middle Ages believed in geocentrism doesn’t mean they believed in Ptolemy's model in 100% of every detail.
Show me the science that supports that. If the land was flat and presents like a pizza, what is the diameter of Earth?I used this calculator to determine distances as the crow flies.
Show me the science that supports that.:facepalm: Show me the non-nasa, non-heretical/Galileo, non-Freemasonic science which opposes it.
Shouldn't we have had the capability to have mapped the earth by now? Can anyone explain what went wrong?
Your original assertion was that that Ptolemaic model was a geocentric, globe earth model. But there are variations of this model. Just because the Middle Ages believed in geocentrism doesn’t mean they believed in Ptolemy's model in 100% of every detail.
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.(https://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Then provide this information. You have not proven anything yet.
The geocentrism of Christendom in the middle ages was based on Ptolemy's Almagest,Thank you. You proved my point. "Based on" does not mean agreement on every, single detail.
"The Hebrew Bible depicted a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, Earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[24] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical Earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[9]"Right. These people are missing for the forest for the trees. Galileo was a freemason and so was Copernicus. The freemasons had been corrupting scientific thought for centuries before Copernicus, so that they could prepare the world to accept his masonic/greek/anti-catholic worldview. Copernicus failed; Galileo was a success (in hindsight).
So God was lying or mistaken for 400 years after Christ? Rather, it is the pagan Greek scientific cosmology that continues to attack the Church to this day, in order to cast doubt on the Scriptural model.
The video I posted in #23 and #55 shows how math shows that the earth curves.That video was entirely based on that Greek guy's calculations from over 2,000 years ago. The videomaker just assumes the math is correct and re-uses the math in a FE model. Horribly lazy and dumb.
This is not true. The Wikipedia article you cited says:
The Sphere by Sacrabosco was one of the main textbooks used to teach "globe earth cosmology" at Catholic universities with the full approval of the Church. Cecco was condemned for "audacious theories concerning the employment and agency of demons" that he wrote in his commentary on the Sphere. Nothing about this suggest that the Church had any problem with people teaching about globe earth.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.:laugh1: And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water.
Nothing about this suggest that the Church had any problem with people teaching about globe earth.Jaynek, you really are a dishonest person. Your posts on various threads, on various topics, proves such.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.1. This assumes that stars and heavenly bodies are high enough in the sky that everyone should see them. It could be that they are LOWER than we think, which explains why the vast spread of land cannot see everything at the same time.
I am looking for papal teaching (or even any Catholic round the time of Galileo) explicitly saying that there is anything wrong with believing the earth is a globe. One cannot assume that globe earth is included if it is not mentioned.
St. Robert Bellarmine defended the Church's position found in the arguments of the summation of the Galileo trial. The Pythagorean globe model contradicts Scripture and they condemned it. 3 popes condemned the Pythagorean Doctrine without sparing a single teaching. The globe was not spared. What other proof are you specifically looking for? Going over the Galileo Trial provides an immense amount of information but can be wieldy.
Wiki is all over the place with its numbers, but here it says people held 400 years worth of the Hebrew Scriptural model of the earth after Christ.
"The Hebrew Bible depicted a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, Earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[24] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical Earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[9]"
Jaynek, you really are a dishonest person. Your posts on various threads, on various topics, proves such.
That video was entirely based on that Greek guy's calculations from over 2,000 years ago. The videomaker just assumes the math is correct and re-uses the math in a FE model. Horribly lazy and dumb.Instead of just saying the math is dumb (totally a feeling). Take that math disprove it.
Right. These people are missing for the forest for the trees. Galileo was a freemason and so was Copernicus. The freemasons had been corrupting scientific thought for centuries before Copernicus, so that they could prepare the world to accept his masonic/greek/anti-catholic worldview. Copernicus failed; Galileo was a success (in hindsight).
Just like the enemies of the Church prepared the world for V2 during the entire 17-1800s (i.e. V2 would've happened in the early 1900s had not God intervened and given us Pope St Pius X), so these same enemies had prepared for CENTURIES during the middle ages to change the cosmological world to one that would support their satanic, heliocentric, anti-Scriptural model.
The Church burned Cecco and his book that was specifically taught the globe earth. Notice they didn't preserve the globe theory and say, "oops, we aren't burning Cecco for promoting the globe. We only burned him for other stuff".
Instead of just saying the math is dumbThis discussion isn't a math problem. "Science" doesn't solve the problem. Scripture + Science + Faith = solution.
They did preserve the globe theory. The book teaching globe earth was used at Church controlled universities. The commentary on the book with bad teaching about demons was burned. Obviously, the problem in the commentary was not that it taught globe earth.
They did preserve the globe theory.:facepalm: There's variations of the globe theory. There could be a globe earth with flat land. You keep interpreting "globe" in only 1 sense. With no proof.
1. This assumes that stars and heavenly bodies are high enough in the sky that everyone should see them. It could be that they are LOWER than we think, which explains why the vast spread of land cannot see everything at the same time.My point was not that Sacrabosco's proofs were correct. It is that they establish how medieval Catholics understood Ptolomaic cosmology. They believed in a spherical earth and it was not compatible with the model you propose.
g
2. There may be a slight bulge from north/south and east/west. But this does not prove the earth's land curves in a spherical way.
3. Flat Earth does not mean completely flat. We know there are variations in altitude, sea level, etc. Not every inch of land is at sea level, nor is it completely flat everywhere.
how
Jaynek, you really are a dishonest person. Your posts on various threads, on various topics, proves such.Personal attacks doesn't help the conversation. It really is just saying you don't accept what she is saying, you have nothing to come back with, so you are just going to discredit everything else she says.
It is that they establish how medieval Catholics understood Ptolomaic cosmology.:jester: I love how you put millions of catholics, in a time period of hundreds of years (Middle Ages), into 1 box and claim they all agreed. This is the dumbest argument ever.
At this point in time, universities were Church institutions that had a papal charter. The Church did not allow things to be taught at university that were in conflict with Church teaching.
Universities also teach anti-Catholic ideologies sometimes, but that doesn't make doing so legit.
At this point in time, universities were Church institutions that had a papal charter. The Church did not allow things to be taught at university that were in conflict with Church teaching.In the Middle Ages, the Franciscans and Dominicans had untold numbers of debates (and many led to fist fights) over the concept of the Immaculate Conception (which had not yet been defined in detail).
:jester: I love how you put millions of catholics, in a time period of hundreds of years (Middle Ages), into 1 box and claim they all agreed. This is the dumbest argument ever.
p.s. If a bunch of catholic universities in the middle ages agreed on something, it doesn't make it de fide.Of course, it was not de fide. It was being taught as natural science. But there is no sign that the Church had any problem with people teaching or accepting the widespread scientific belief that the earth is a globe. There are even Doctors of the Church who taught it (as science).
This discussion isn't a math problem. "Science" doesn't solve the problem. Scripture + Science + Faith = solution.But math is the basic of science. The model of earth that you describe has no math. Please provide some math that works. That is all I am asking for.
You're trying to figure this out just using science. Won't work.
We know what books were used to teach cosmology at the universities (with Church approval). So we know that these ideas were very widespread.They were starting points for discussion; not facts which couldn't be challenged. You're missing the whole point of Scholasticism, which is why modernist schooling had to destroy such.
And we don't have any evidence that anyone disagreed with them.
As I already said, it is theoretically possible that somebody somewhere disagreed. We have no reason to think it was significant, considering it left no trace.Oh, i'm sure there were many traces left. Most of which were destroyed and/or left untranslated. To suggest that the current worldview was never challenged is unfathomable.
I am looking for papal teaching (or even any Catholic round the time of Galileo) explicitly saying that there is anything wrong with believing the earth is a globe. One cannot assume that globe earth is included if it is not mentioned.
This does not support your claim that "Galileo fought the Scriptural model which was a flat geocentric earth." He lived more more than a thousand years after the Hebrew/Babylonian model was "replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical Earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens." The latter was the cosmology he was opposing with his heliocentric model. The sphericity of the earth was not a point under contention.
I agree that some Catholics believed in the Hebrew/Babylonian cosmology in the first centuries of the Church. It was, however, not a consensus and it was replaced. And it had nothing to do with the issues at the time of Galileo.
But math is the basic of science. The model of earth that you describe has no math. Please provide some math that works. That is all I am asking for.I tried to have a math discussion with you, but you kept arguing that the North Star moves, which goes against the entire basis for why it can be used as a navigation tool. And then you were posting sources from google, which is obviously not even geocentric science. Impossible to discuss with you.
:facepalm: The smartest catholics were the French and Spanish, especially the university of Salamanca.
1. Have you read every french and spanish scientific journal of the time? Or are you just assuming that the masonic-controlled modern science would actually translate theories which would challenge the current, atheistic worldview?
But I am not responsible for proving your position. You are.No, you have it backwards. The prevailing model is flat earth. It was held for 1,000s of years, by various civilizations, and passed down from Adam to Noah to the Israelites. This view is religious in origin and is backed up by Scripture, ancient history, and our senses.
I tried to have a math discussion with you, but you kept arguing that the North Star moves, which goes against the entire basis for why it can be used as a navigation tool. And then you were posting sources from google, which is obviously not even geocentric science. Impossible to discuss with you.Here we go again. :facepalm:
The north star is part of the big dipper and does not move.
No, you have it backwards. The prevailing model is flat earth. It was held for 1,000s of years, by various civilizations, and passed down from Adam to Noah to the Israelites. This view is religious in origin and is backed up by Scripture, ancient history, and our senses.Both flat and globe earth models can be traced back to pagans with horrible ideas about all sorts of things. One influenced the imagery of the Old Testament, the other was the scientific consensus for most of Catholic history. Your understanding of the situation puts St. Thomas on satan's side of a religious battle between good and evil. That is just one of the reasons I do not find your unsupported counterfactual rhetoric especially compelling.
The greek model (which is where copernicus/galileo got their models) is anti-Israelite, anti-scripture, and anti-Tradition/anti-Adam/anti-Noah. The greek model was created by the same freemasons who exist today. The same people who worship Nimrod, who built the tower of Babel and who tried to kill the God-fearing peoples of that time because they wouldn't go along with the hoped-for-ancient-NWO. The greek model is based on sun/satan/lucifer worship. It's an inversion of the truth, as lucifer does.
This entire debate is a religious one, with scientific details. But, at its core, it's a religious battle between God's story and satan's version.
Both flat and globe earth models can be traced back to pagans with horrible ideas about all sorts of things. One influenced the imagery of the Old Testament, the other was the scientific consensus for most of Catholic history.:confused::confused::confused:
I never said the North Star is the only navigational tool. Please provide proof.
Celestial navigation is based on the stars using a star map for the proper season and time of night.Navigation was done using the North star for centuries.
The North Star is not in the same place at the same time of night every single night, therefore something is moving. I believe it is the sky. Try it. Go find the north star, now go find it every day for 30 days. Did it move? It looks like it did. Ask yourself why? Probably perspective.It moves in very small arcs; but that's missing the point. Generally speaking, it doesn't move, which is why it's ALWAYS been used as a navigation tool. In the northern hemisphere, it's the most constant celestial point in the sky.
Faith and scripture have not been clear enough on this matter to prove anything.You sound like a Modernist because "proving" something is the exact opposite of Faith and the authority of Scripture. If you need proof, then you no longer have/need Faith.
Meanwhile, Scripture does offer some proofs/facts, which we must believe:Give the sources of scripture you are talking about and then give the encyclicals that back you up.
1. Firmament
2. 4 corners of earth
3. Earth's foundation/pillars
4. Earth doesn't move.
These are just 4, simple facts which we must believe, as part of the infallibility of Scripture. The only model which can answer these facts is FE. There is no globe model which does, therefore it fails right out of the box.
Again, I start with the "non negotiables" of Scripture and find a model that fits. You are starting with a model and then trying to make Scripture fit (or you ignore some Scripture altogether).
Meanwhile, Scripture does offer some proofs/facts, which we must believe:
1. Firmament
2. 4 corners of earth
3. Earth's foundation/pillars
4. Earth doesn't move.
These are just 4, simple facts which we must believe, as part of the infallibility of Scripture. The only model which can answer these facts is FE. There is no globe model which does, therefore it fails right out of the box.
This was taught by both St Augustine and St. Basil. This was clearly accepted by all the medieval authors who wrote about the earth being a globe, since they would not have wanted to go against Scripture. Later, the St. Augustine passage was quoted by Leo XIII in the encylical Providentissimus Deus. That makes it Church teaching.Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth.
I'll provide the quotes later.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, [globe earth geocentric model] or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side? [flat earth model]...
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.
Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.
..the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time...
Snow globe.Not possible in context.
Snow globe.Show me the corners of a snow globe.
It doesn't seem like I'm able to help. Keep looking into this subject, there is a lot more to know.
Your first line misrepresents my position, also known as a strawman argument. The second line is an attempt to discredit me as a person, which is called an ad hominem argument. These are both logical fallacies. You appear unable to make a logical argument for your position.
Do you have a degree in theology from a novus ordo "university?"Why should I answer this?
Show me the corners of a snow globe."...blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." (John 20:29)
The fact is, St Thomas’ globe model had a firmament. As did St Bedes’. Because they believed in Scripture and their model flowed from scripture as its origin.
Accepting the existence of a firmament does not necessarily lead to belief in flat earth and it did not in the case of St. Thomas.This is not my argument. My point is, there is no current "working model" of a geocentric, globe earth which lines up with Scripture. Modern science's version of either helio or geocentrism is at odds with Scripture. So the point being, we catholics don't have a working model of the solar system or of the earth.
If you want to say, "I believe in St Bede/St Thomas' globe model"...ok, fine. But modern science laughs at St Thomas, the same as FE. Modern Science's "story" of the cosmos and the earth's map does not line up with either FE or St Thomas.
And we know they were right to do so because Pope Leo later taught this in an encyclical. He even included St. Basil's point that Scripture that appears to speak of the earth having a shape should be understood figuratively. This is magisterial teaching. (Which you are apparently disobeying.)
Even if the theory of relativity lines up, there's 3,000 other modern science "facts" which don't. Modern science says that a globe/geocentric earth spins. Scripture says the earth is fixed. Modern science shows no firmament in any model. Scripture says there is. 2 simple scriptural facts = 2 modern science failures. ...There is no catholic, working model of the cosmos.
I think determining what constitutes "scriptural facts" should be left to experts who know how to apply Providentissimus Deus.:jester: Scripture is to be interpreted literally, as a rule. In exceptions, the Church has told us that certain passages are symbolic. But the vast majority of Scripture is to be taken literally. In absence of any Church commentary, then the passage is literal.
Why would a woman even want a degree in theology, unless it is to teach and have control over men?
:jester: Scripture is to be interpreted literally, as a rule. In exceptions, the Church has told us that certain passages are symbolic. But the vast majority of Scripture is to be taken literally. In absence of any Church commentary, then the passage is literal.In this case, however, there is Church commentary. Pope Leo wrote "they [the inspired authors of Scripture] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time..."
They turned to Greek science for the answer to that question. And we know they were right to do so because Pope Leo later taught this in an encyclical.Pope Leo, as with many other popes, said that science cannot contradict Faith. They were supporting the use of science in its proper role - to help explain the Faith.
Pope Leo wrote "they [the inspired authors of Scripture] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time..."So you're saying that EVERY instance in Scripture where something natural is described, then it's figurative. :facepalm: That's not what Pope Leo meant.
If someone uses science to contradict Scripture, they are a heretic...or worse.
So you're saying that EVERY instance in Scripture where something natural is described, then it's figurative. :facepalm: That's not what Pope Leo meant.
We have no obligation to accept non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture.The Church has not, nor has ever attempted to, nor ever will...issue an authoritative interpretation on EVERY. single. passage. in Scripture.
The Church has not, nor has ever attempted to, nor ever will...issue an authoritative interpretation on EVERY. single. passage. in Scripture.A lot of the issues that you make assertions about have been addressed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in statements endorsed by popes. These are authoritative interpretation. There is nothing the least bit modernist about accepting these PBC teachings.
That's why She says that, in the ABSENCE of Her authoritative interpretation, that Scripture is to be taken literally. That's the default.
have been addressed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in statements endorsed by popes. These are authoritative interpretation.The Church has NEVER taught that, in absence of an authoritative interpretation, that one can interpret Scripture as they will. She has said, through St Thomas and others, that in absence of commentary from the Church, the passage is to be taken literally. Which is MOST of Scripture.
The Church has NEVER taught that, in absence of an authoritative interpretation, that one can interpret Scripture as they will. She has said, through St Thomas and others, that in absence of commentary from the Church, the passage is to be taken literally. Which is MOST of Scripture.
I was wondering when you were going to being up Pope Leo's encyclical, and claim that we are being disobedient. When all else fails, you bring this up. A woman who has a degree from a Modernist "university" believes that we are being disobedient. Why would a woman even want a degree in theology, unless it is to teach and have control over men?One upvote was made by me and was a mistake. Meg you really make awful assumptions against people. I wish you would just back away from the conversation, when you try to undermine peoples character. You should apologize to Jaynek because she pursued information on her husband's request, she had no intent to be a feminist, or a modenest. In this day and age all traditional Catholics know that those comments are hitting below the belt and lack any form of charity.
One upvote was made by me and was a mistake. Meg you really make awful assumptions against people. I wish you would just back away from the conversation, when you try to undermine peoples character. You should apologize to Jaynek because she pursued information on her husband's request, she had no intent to be a feminist, or a modenest. In this day and age all traditional Catholics know that those comments are hitting below the belt and lack any form of charity.
Ps. Meg unfortunately can't see this post.
You seem to be having trouble understanding what I'm saying. There is authoritative intepretation. There is commentary from the Church.Let me guess (since you haven't posted)...the commentary says something like "The Church doesn't definitively say what the shape of the earth is" and "The Bible isn't meant to be a science book".
Actually, I can see your post, when I'm not logged in. Since you are a arrogant know-it-all, I expect no less of a response from you. I won't respond to you further on this subject. You need to grow up.Oh so you are deceitful as well.
Let me guess (since you haven't posted)...the commentary says something like "The Church doesn't definitively say what the shape of the earth is" and "The Bible isn't meant to be a science book".When the PBC says a passage is not literal, that means it is not literal. It carried a lot of authority.
This does not overrule the GENERAL PRINCIPLE that scripture is literal.
Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907 (ASS [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f): “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”
You can't just assume that you know what it says and that everything is literal.:facepalm: This isn't what I said. I said, as St Thomas said, that the DEFAULT is literal....unless the Church has said otherwise. Do you know what "default" means?
We have no obligation to accept non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture.This is wrong. The % of non-authoritative interpretations of biblical passages, by the Church, is like 80% (or more). This means the Church has NOT interpreted about 80% (or more) of the Bible. This is why the Church teaches that the "default" is a literal interpretation. Because She considers a) most of the bible is to be taken literally, b) She only interprets those passages which become problems and need a decision-maker.
The % of non-authoritative interpretations of biblical passages, by the Church, is like 80% (or more). This means the Church has NOT interpreted about 80% (or more) of the Bible. This is why the Church teaches that the "default" is a literal interpretation. Because She considers a) most of the bible is to be taken literally, b) She only interprets those passages which become problems and need a decision-maker.You are unfamiliar with a major resource where the Church interprets the passages which become problems. Only a person who is familiar with it and similar writings knows when to apply the default. You are not qualified to make pronouncements on what is literal or not. The fact that the literal interpretation is the default does not mean that an untrained person should just be assuming it in this area.
d) which devalues the Church Fathers, who commented on probably 90% of all scripture and who learned directly from the Apostles.
You are unfamiliar with a major resource where the Church interprets the passages which become problems.Again, the Church has only commented on like 20% of the Bible. Ever read the Haydock bible? Most passages aren't commented on. And even the Haydock isn't infallible 100%.
Only a person who is familiar with it and similar writings knows when to apply the default. You are not qualified to make pronouncements on what is literal or not.:jester: You obviously don't know what "default" means. Embarrassing. Your word-salad doesn't change this fact.
The fact that the literal interpretation is the default does not mean that an untrained person should just be assuming it in this area.That's exactly what it means. :facepalm: Default = assuming a literal translation. Was St Thomas stupid? No, you're hard-hearted.
When discussing "the secrets of nature" we know, as Leo XIII taught, that much of it is not literal. This is not an area for an untrained layperson to assume it is all literal and denounce everyone who disagrees with his interpretations as a heretic.If the Church hasn't spoken on a passage, it's to be taken literally. Period. Which is like 80% or more.
You are ignoring St. Basil who is a Church Father and explicitly says that those who claim Scripture teaches the shape of the earth are misinterpretting passages that should be taken figuratively.:facepalm: I've never said the Church teaches the shape of the earth. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You obviously don't know what "default" means.
The default is what happens or exists unless something else takes place to prevent it. If the Church does not teach that a passage is figurative then the default is to take it as literal.Hey, you got it!! Congrats.
One sometimes needs to make some effort to determine whether the Church has taught it is figurative, before going to the default. One looks at commentaries (like Haydock as you mentioned), PCB statements, etc.1. The Haydock Bible is regularly regarded as a very safe guidance on Scripture.
One does not say, "There's an 80% chance it's literal. I'll just assume it is."You're twisting my words, once again. Going off of the Haydock Bible, the % of his comments vs passages is small, i.e. 20%. The point being, the % of passages where THE CHURCH HAS NOT PROVIDED COMMENTARY is LARGE, i.e. 80% as an estimate.
Especially not when it concerns "secrets of nature" on which subject we know, due to magisterial teaching, there is a strong possibility it is figurative.Again, you're twisting the meaning of Pope Leo XIII and the PCB.
Since you are unfamiliar with the PCB, it is doubtful that you have made a proper effort to discover what the Church teaches on these things before going to the default. This means your opinions on the subject have little value.Give me one example of something the PCB "teaches" which is not in the Haydock bible.
Although, given that St. Basil already taught that those who claim Scripture teaches the shape of the earth have misunderstood passages that should have been taken figuratively, we probably don't even need to bother with the PCB to know that all the flat-earther "proof-verses" are going against Church interpretation.This is just total BS. The Church does not teach the shape of the earth in the Bible, or elsewhere. Never said it did. But that does NOT mean that there are not facts which must be believed about the earth, which are infallible. Such facts are non-negotiables.
You're arguing that anything scientific is figurative. That's a major error and not what Pope Leo XIII or anyone else is saying.
It is also not what I am saying. I don't have the patience to have a discussion with someone who keeps misrepresenting me and insulting me. I'm done.All you keep saying is "refer to the PBC" which implies that any "secrets of nature" are figurative. You keep harping on the PBC as if it has all the answers. And if the Haydock Bible is wrong. So, you're right, you've actually said very little, while implying a whole lot of BS.