Author Topic: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse (Read 7452 times)

cassini · « **on:** February 17, 2018, 04:51:53 PM »

Blasphemy: the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk

Flat-earthism: that the Scriptures reveal a flat-earth and that it is the true Catholic meaning of Scripturer.

Flat-earth blasphemy: This occurs by way of INFERING the churchmen, Fathers and popes since the founding of Christianity failed to protect the true meaning of Scripture, even when condemning the multitude of 'Pythagorean' heresies right up to the time of Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, and Galileo.

Having read a new book Pythagoras Bruno Galileo by Professor A.A. Martinez, now out of print, we now have the best book ever written on the 'Pythagorean' heresies and the Church's fight against them from the very beginning.

It seems Pythagoras (570BC-495) left not a single written word behind him. That said, many Greek philosophers accredited to him a multitude of things. It is written that he invented heliocentrism, multy worlds, the earth is a star, moving bodies have souls etc, including that he was the first to insist the EARTH IS A SPHERE.

From roughly 150AD to 430AD the early Church Fathers critised and denounced many Pythagorean notions as false or heretical. A global earth was not among them. Tjhe Fathers Hippolytus, Chrysosom, Jerome and Augustine formulated the core texts and judgements that were echoed much later by Catholic theologians, but a global earth was not among them. By then Pythagoras had been elivated to a living God just like Jesus. The number of heresies multuplied from this and it seems to me Lucifer had taken the role of Pythagoras. That is how serious the Devil was attacking the Church.
It was Copernicus who started Pythagoreanism all over again. Bruno was the one who adopted many of his 'cosmic' heresies and was seven years before the Inquisition being questioned on every one of them. Four of the Inquisitors were involved in judgement against Galileo's heliocentrism that he attributed to Pythagoras.

Throughout the 1700 years of the Church's anti-Pythagorean battle against the heresies attributed to Pythagoras, whether he invented them or not, not once WAS THE GLOBAL EARTH ONE OF THE CONDEMNED. Indeed there was never mentioned the notion that the Scriptures depict or insists on a FLAT-EARTH. That had to be because it did not exist ever as a fact of Scripture.

But now we have a growing number of Catholics who are insisting the Scriptures do reveal a FLAT-EARTH, and calling any who disagree as bad Catholics to say the least, as anyone can check by reading their posts on this and other forums. This INFERS that all the Fathers and popes and theologians who never defended their FLAT-EARTH were FAILING IN THEIR CATHOLIC DUTY TO DEFEND THE TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE.
And that is why I sait it amounts to blasphemy or worse.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2018, 05:12:00 PM »

Quote

Throughout the 1700 years of the Church's anti-Pythagorean battle against the heresies attributed to Pythagoras, whether he invented them or not, not once WAS THE GLOBAL EARTH ONE OF THE CONDEMNED. Indeed there was never mentioned the notion that the Scriptures depict or insists on a FLAT-EARTH. That had to be because it did not exist ever as a fact of Scripture.

But now we have a growing number of Catholics who are insisting the Scriptures do reveal a FLAT-EARTH, and calling any who disagree as bad Catholics to say the least, as anyone can check by reading their posts on this and other forums. This [IMPLIES] that all the Fathers and popes and theologians who never defended their FLAT-EARTH were FAILING IN THEIR CATHOLIC DUTY TO DEFEND THE TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE.

.
Hope you don't mind the one correction.
.
There is one account of the discovery Pythagoras made in his right triangle equation, that when he discovered the relation c²= a² + b², he was so exuberant and elated that he threw a block party that lasted a whole week.
.
One could say he was aware his discovery would have enduring value.
.
And there is no hint of him having excluded flat-earthers!
.
Those were the days, I guess.
.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2018, 06:20:00 PM »

Quote from: cassini on February 17, 2018, 04:51:53 PM

Flat-earth blasphemy: This occurs by way of INFERING the churchmen, Fathers and popes since the founding of Christianity failed to protect the true meaning of Scripture, even when condemning the multitude of 'Pythagorean' heresies right up to the time of Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, and Galileo.

Well, this is true only of the dogmatic flat earthers. You know, there's no negative infallibility whereby the Church is guaranteed to condemn every single error floating around out there. So, for instance, I personally think that the Church SHOULD have condemned Molinism.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2018, 08:21:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2018, 06:20:00 PM

.

Quote from: cassini on Today at 02:51:53 PM
Quote
Flat-earth blasphemy: This occurs by way of [IMPLYING that] the churchmen, Fathers
and popes since the founding of Christianity failed to protect the true meaning of Scripture, even
when condemning the multitude of 'Pythagorean' heresies right up to the time of Copernicus, Bruno,
Kepler, and Galileo.

.
Well, this is true only of the dogmatic flat earthers. You know, there's no negative infallibility whereby the Church is guaranteed to condemn every single error floating around out there. So, for instance, I personally think that the Church SHOULD have condemned Molinism.

.
That's a good point, Ladislaus.
.
BTW I have another correction, "inferring." The first time I saw this I let it pass because I thought there was an aspect of the interpretation of the churchmen and Fathers and popes going on in the sentence. But now I see there is none. Cassini is talking about implying, not inferring.
.
That the churchmen and Fathers and popes had failed to protect the meaning of Scripture is implied by this "blasphemy," not inferred by same.
.
It is an implication, to suggest the Fathers were negligent or at least remiss. To imply (implication) means to indicate, entail, intimate, insinuate, point to, accuse.
.
However, the making of this implication is an inference or a judgment. To infer (inference) means to conclude, ascertain, construe, deduce, import or derive.
.

Quote

Infer has been used to mean "to hint or suggest" since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: "The next speaker criticized the proposal inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government." Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.

.
That is to say, when infer is used in a place where imply is more clear, the ambiguous use of infer makes the text less clear.
.
If we were saying that their interpretation of Scripture can be understood today in a different way than previously thought it would have been okay to use "inferred," for example: This occurs by way of inferring a different understanding for today from what the Fathers had interpreted of Scripture in their time. I'm not saying that's a good idea, though. It smacks of historical criticism or relativism. This is just to distinguish between two words. It has become very commonplace in our time to avoid using the more CLEAR TERM, imply or implied or implication, and instead to use the term more vague in its place, infer, inferred, inference.
.
That being said, it seems to me that the churchmen of those days were prudent by not being heavy-handed regarding a subject that was of no great consequence at that time. What difference would it have made for them whether everyone had agreed or not about the shape of the earth? What possible consequence could there have been if a Catholic had believed one way or the other in those days?
.
However, today it's not the same story!!
.
We have today many more observations by scientists, astronomers, surveyors, satellites, astronauts, aviators and such, to the point where flat-earthers are required to ignore all the testimony of our senses and mind in order to adhere to their unsupportable dogmatism. It renders sound thinking to be under attack, much like what the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI does.
.
It's an insult to religion for flat-earthers to claim they have a basis for their silliness in religion, and imputes silliness and unsound thinking to religion. So it is dangerous on that basis.
.
Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.
.

happenby · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2018, 08:35:07 PM »

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2018, 08:37:38 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 17, 2018, 08:35:07 PM

.
The best a dogmatic flat-earther can do in this case is to demonstrate lunacy. Funny farm inmate!

.
Which further exemplifies that Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.

aryzia · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2018, 08:55:08 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 17, 2018, 08:37:38 PM

.
The best a dogmatic flat-earther can do in this case is to demonstrate lunacy. Funny farm inmate!
.
Which further exemplifies that Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.

cassini · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2018, 11:15:24 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 17, 2018, 05:12:00 PM

.
Hope you don't mind the one correction.
.
There is one account of the discovery Pythagoras made in his right triangle equation, that when he discovered the relation c²= a² + b², he was so exuberant and elated that he threw a block party that lasted a whole week.
.
One could say he was aware his discovery would have enduring value.
.
And there is no hint of him having excluded flat-earthers!
.
Those were the days, I guess.
.

Correction accepted Neil. I deliberated used the word INFER in charity as it suggests no deliberate malace was involved or intended.

A very learned pal of mine also read the book PBG, which will be reprinted in a shorter edition later in the year. His insight into these Pythagorean heresies is far greater than mine. You know the Pythagoreans were condemned for saying God worked by numbers alone. Kepler was one of these Number Pythagorean hertetics. As well as trying to work out his heliocentric solar-system by numbers, Kepler compromised the shape of orbits as ellipses.

Kepler: Used data from de Brahe’s naked-eye observations. Produced a curve that deals in approximations only; confers no utility whatsoever on the second of his foci and is the sole philosophical and mathematical basis for Newton’s heliocentric solar system, and he says it came to him in a dream.

Now God's astronomer, the geocentrist Domernico Cassini discovered orbits are what are called Cassinian Ovals in which both foci are used to calculate all aspects of orbits..

Now let us see the Pythagorean heresy inherent in this scenario, one probably only my pal has noted.

Let us give the Trinity a triangle basis. Keplers ellipse has only one functioning foci that makes his Trinity triangle, whereas Cassini has two functioning foci that makes the Trinity triangle.

Now for the heresy involved. What happened in the Eastern schism of 1054 that caused a huge devide in Christianity. They said the Holy Ghost only proceedes from the Father (Kepler's one functioning foci ellipse, the foundation of heliocentrism,) whereas the truth is that the Holy Ghost proceedes from BOTH the Father and the Son (Cassini's two functioning foci in his geocentrism).

Meg · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2018, 11:34:32 AM »

Quote from: cassini on February 18, 2018, 11:15:24 AM

Correction accepted Neil. I deliberated used the word INFER in charity as it suggests no deliberate malace was involved or intended.

A very learned pal of mine also read the book PBG, which will be reprinted in a shorter edition later in the year. His insight into these Pythagorean heresies is far greater than mine. You know the Pythagoreans were condemned for saying God worked by numbers alone. Kepler was one of these Number Pythagorean hertetics. As well as trying to work out his heliocentric solar-system by numbers, Kepler compromised the shape of orbits as ellipses.

Kepler: Used data from de Brahe’s naked-eye observations. Produced a curve that deals in approximations only; confers no utility whatsoever on the second of his foci and is the sole philosophical and mathematical basis for Newton’s heliocentric solar system, and he says it came to him in a dream.

Now God's astronomer, the geocentrist Domernico Cassini discovered orbits are what are called Cassinian Ovals in which both foci are used to calculate all aspects of orbits..
Now let us see the Pythagorean heresy inherent in this scenario, one probably only my pal has noted.

Let us give the Trinity a triangle basis. Keplers ellipse has only one functioning foci that makes his Trinity triangle, whereas Cassini has two functioning foci that makes the Trinity triangle.

Now for the heresy involved. What happened in the Eastern schism of 1054 that caused a huge devide in Christianity. They said the Holy Ghost only proceedes from the Father (Kepler's one functioning foci ellipse, the foundation of heliocentrism,) whereas the truth is that the Holy Ghost proceedes from BOTH the Father and the Son (Cassini's two functioning foci in his geocentrism).

Like others here, you seem to believe that advanced science proves that the earth is a globe, and that we should not be allowed to say that science and Scripture indicate that the earth is flat, or we're probably guilty of blasphemy. Blasphemy against what? Modern science?

Meg · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2018, 11:39:27 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 17, 2018, 08:37:38 PM

.
The best a dogmatic flat-earther can do in this case is to demonstrate lunacy. Funny farm inmate!
.
Which further exemplifies that Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.

More like it's a menace to modern science and NASA teachings.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2018, 12:00:03 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 17, 2018, 08:21:54 PM

It's an insult to religion for flat-earthers to claim they have a basis for their silliness in religion, and imputes silliness and unsound thinking to religion. So it is dangerous on that basis.

Flat-earthism is a menace to right reason.

IF the flat-earthers are wrong, and the earth is indeed a globe, then yes indeed there's the risk of making religion look bad. That is part of the meaning of Pope Leo XIII in PD and I think that there's a quote from St. Augustine along those lines.

If I say that my religion teaches a flat earth, and it turns out to be false, and the earth is in fact a globe, then this makes that religion look bad and discredits the religion in the eyes of those outside of it. It could become a stumbling block for those who might otherwise be inclined to convert.

Now, let's say that the flat earthers are correct, and that the earth is indeed flat -- and as you know I remain undecided at this time about it -- EVEN THEN there's some risk. It's just a fact that 99% of people out there think you're a nutjob if you think that the earth is flat. In fact, in common parlance, the term flat-earther is actually used more broadly to connote a tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy. So even IF they're right, I feel that they need to back down ... for the sake of PRUDENCE if nothing else ... from alleging that the Catholic Church teaches flat earth. So, even if they happen to be correct, they have to be very careful here.

Let me give you another example. I happen to agree completely with Bishop Williamson's position on the h0Ɩ0cαųst. But you know what, if I were in such a high profile position, I would NEVER talk about it publicly. Why? Because it could make someone who might otherwise to be inclined to listen to you from a theological standpoint (arguments vs. modernism and Vatican II) perhaps dismiss you out of hand as a nutjob and not listen to another word you might have to say. So it's a question of PRUDENCE at the very least. Is it vital to people's salvation to know the truth about the h0Ɩ0cαųst? Of course not. I agree with Bishop Williamson's views, but do NOT agree with him that he should talk about it publicly. Similarly with flat earth.

So, for the proponents of flat earth (and I do not use the term flat-earther pejoratively as many do but only because I'm lazy to type out "proponents of flat earth" each time), do you think that this truth as you see it is SO vital to people's salvation that you'd be willing to scare off untold numbers of potential converts to Traditional Catholicism by claiming that flat earth is CHURCH TEACHING?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2018, 12:05:30 PM »

Now, I think that even IF you were to talk about flat earth as just a personal opinion, there's a little risk there of making your theological positions look bad. But as long as you clearly distance that view from your theological views, the danger is very little. Perhaps along the lines of, "I personally have become convinced that the earth is flat, but most other Traditional Catholics think I'm nuts." That's how I would present it if I were to come around to being convinced that the earth is flat. But if you go around claiming that the Church teaches flat earth ... the damage could be great.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2018, 12:19:44 PM »

Now, obviously, if something is essential to the faith, the risk of turning people off needs to be ignored. Just because people might be turned off by the dogma of EENS, for instance, this doesn't mean that I stop talking about it ... or that, when I do talk about it, I feel the need to water it down so that it wouldn't turn someone off. Perhaps you wouldn't emphasize it as much, and would spend more time talking about other things, but you can't deny it or water it down.

And some of the flat earthers believe that flat earth is in the same category as other Church dogmas. But, even then, wouldn't it make sense not to push it as much and focus on other things instead?

Meg · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2018, 12:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 18, 2018, 12:00:03 PM

So, for the proponents of flat earth (and I do not use the term flat-earther pejoratively as many do but only because I'm lazy to type out "proponents of flat earth" each time), do you think that this truth as you see it is SO vital to people's salvation that you'd be willing to scare off untold numbers of potential converts to Traditional Catholicism by claiming that flat earth is CHURCH TEACHING?

"Untold numbers of potential converts?" Really?

How many potential converts are going to convert to Resistance Traditional Catholicism? Is it really all that many? How many non-Catholics really convert to Catholicism though the Resistance? I think that the numbers would be very few.

Flat-earthers here mainly speak to those who are already Catholic. Perhaps you haven't noticed that most of the forum members here are Catholic. (This isn't the stupid Catholic Answers forum).

And.... many Catholics flat-earthers (including me) support the Resistance. Do you?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2018, 12:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 18, 2018, 12:00:03 PM

So, for the proponents of flat earth (and I do not use the term flat-earther pejoratively as many do but only because I'm lazy to type out "proponents of flat earth" each time), do you think that this truth as you see it is SO vital to people's salvation that you'd be willing to scare off untold numbers of potential converts to Traditional Catholicism by claiming that flat earth is CHURCH TEACHING?

Hey, instead of just mindlessly down-thumbing my post, could you try to answer this question?

It's a good thing that I can separate in my own mind the position itself vs. the attitudes exhibited by many of you. Unfortunately, most people can't ... so you lose them very quickly. Instead of doing a service to the cause, you do it great harm.

Author Topic: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse (Read 7452 times)

cassini

Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Neil Obstat

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Neil Obstat

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

happenby

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Neil Obstat

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

aryzia

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

cassini

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Meg

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Meg

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Meg

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic flat-earthism probably blasphemous or worse