.
Quote from: cassini on Today at 02:51:53 PM
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.
.
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.
.