Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

What model do you believe most accurately describes the cosmos?

Modern Science:  earth revolves around barycenter of solar system as solar system moves through space, etc.
25 (25%)
Geocentrism:  earth is stationary, shaped like a globe, and the vast universe revolves around it
35 (35%)
Flat Earth:  earth is stationary, the surface we live on is flat, covered by a physical firmament, and the universe is closer than we're told
31 (31%)
Other
9 (9%)

Total Members Voted: 92

Author Topic: Cosmology Poll  (Read 84948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #200 on: September 28, 2022, 02:31:15 PM »
Interesting. It sounds like they're just using the word "space" to mean the same thing as "aether", and that they really don't reject the concept itself. 
It depends.  After the Michelson-Morley interferometer tests of the 1880's, which showed the earth was not in motion, Einstein invented Relativity and dispensed with the ether (and ever since he's been a deity).  However, Georges Sagnac, and others, performed a similar test to the MM test and showed, again, there is an ether (1913, I believe).  The presence of an ether 'implies' a non-moving earth so it's a hushed topic as far as I can tell.  Einstein, when he revised his theory, put the ether back in.  Also, it seems our GPS systems use the 'Sagnac Effect' (stationary earth) in order to work.

If you haven't read it, the R. Sungenis book 'Geocentrism 101' compiles some pretty interesting testimony.

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #201 on: September 28, 2022, 03:30:04 PM »
It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off. The north and south are fixed points even on a globe, but east and west are only directions, so their separation might be interpreted as unending or undefinable, which may indicate our iniquities are removed an infinite amount or no longer exist.
To suggest "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us" can even work on a globe where the east and west can and do meet up is beyond iffy, Especially when it's perfectly obvious that it works far better on a flat earth, where east and west can never meet up.  Not to mention we have no fathers or saints teaching earth is a globe, yet we have over a dozen of them who teach earth is not a globe, and further, that when these fathers fought the globe, they were fighting pagans over the issue making many other clarifications using types like the temple, the tabernacle and the ark to make sure it was clear to Catholics that the shape of the earth was intimately tied in with the faith and providence of God and never included a spherical earth. 


Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #202 on: September 28, 2022, 04:08:02 PM »
It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off
There is no "falling off". The edge is hypothesized to be where the Firmament meets the earth. Which is obscured by possibly hundreds or thousands of miles of Antarctic hellscape.

Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #203 on: September 28, 2022, 11:45:41 PM »
The following from Wiki gives a partial list of flat earth Fathers of the Church who taught that earth is shaped like the OT Tabernacle, the Ark, and the Temple:
*St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, Origen, Methodius, Cosmas, Ephrem Syrus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle. 

Cosmas' exegesis on the flat earth and the tabernacle in his book Christian Topography is easily obtained to read for free online.

Wiki continues:
Examining the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, Chapters 33-37, and Book Viii, Chapter 12, we find its further influence on Constantine's (and Cosmas') method.  The verses quoted in both the Apostolic Constitutions and Christian Topography to describe the structure of the universe are taken from the books of Psalms, Isaiah, and Job rather than from the account of Creation in Genesis giving them a homiletic application to articulate and illustrate a specific physical shape of the cosmos. 

The created universe is portrayed in both words and pictures as a vaulted rectangle.  The Tabernacle, the Temple and the Ark were all depicted in the same way, since they were made "according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount" EX 25:40

The sanctuary and its vessels are symbolic representations of the Creation.

The Ark represents the earth and the part of the "Holy" in the Tabernacle, while the upper, vaulted, section represents both heaven and the most sacred area, the "Holy of Holies".  With the angels spreading their wings to cover the Ark.   

The cosmos created in Genesis 1 bears a striking resemblance to the Tabernacle in Exodus 35–40, which was the prototype of the Temple in Jerusalem and the focus of priestly worship of Yahweh; for this reason, and because other Middle Eastern creation stories also climax with the construction of a temple/house for the creator-god, Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a description of the construction of the cosmos as God's house, for which the Temple in Jerusalem served as the earthly representative.[31]    Wiki 

Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61). 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Fathers of the Church knew the value of scripture so they didn't ignore the firmament, or pretend it was another term for air, but saw how it fit within the spiritual and physical paradigm of creation. These fathers identified types like the ark, the temple and the tabernacle in relation to the earth, furthering understanding the relationship between creation and the liturgy, between the earth and the church. All of these great men (and others not mentioned here) believed the firmament is the divider between heaven and earth.  Anyone who ignores a consensus of Father's teachings for the sake of their own personal opinion is a contrarian to true Catholic exegeses and teachings. 

When the modern geocentrics provide historical Catholic teachings like the selection provided above, to prove their dangling in space ball theory, we'll be all ears.  I've been hanging around for a couple of years now waiting and asking for their proof, but have yet to be provided even one historical Catholic saint or father, or scripture, that expounds on earth being a sphere.  Here we have a dozen great Catholic historical saints and fathers, the Apostolic Constitutions and Scripture, to show that the firmament is not just hot air, but an impassable boundary between heaven and earth and they all agree that earth is not a globe.


I don't know for sure, so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding for the ranking of revelation of truth on this topic would be:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis

Our Lady of Fatima was witnessed by three persons who were willing to endure torture rather than refute their testimony.  They testified that Our Lady rose into the air and (I can't remember the exact words and would love if somebody knows where to find them would share) exited through the gate of Heaven (or a window or something like that??).  That would correspond to the Ancient Hebrew diagram I posted earlier:







70,000 witnessed the miracle of the sun which would only be possible with a sun that is smaller than the earth and local (closer to earth than 93mil miles away).

If the sun were as big as NASA says it simply wouldn't work to come down to the ground in a way that people testified they wanted to run away.  





If it shrunk in size then populations around the world would have been affected but only those within miles of the apparition site witnessed any effect.

The wonderful book by V Mary Agreda has many positive aspects, but there are some issues:

In 1696 it was condemned my Rome.

"It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset's translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that

it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term 'adoration' to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions.

 ...

Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416 — V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some blamed the writer for having said that she saw the earth under the form of an egg, and that it was a globe slightly compressed at the two poles, all of which seemed worthy of censure. Others condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation."


I think a globe that is compressed at the poles is compatible with the Ancient Hebrew diagram. 

 I can't find it at the moment, but I believe Agreda also said something about four rivers.  I have heard these may be at the North Pole but civilians aren't allowed to go there to view this area.

I can't find her words (not feeling well and can't read much at the moment :P) to see if they could be compatible with flat earth with dome over (inside the globe) or if they could only apply to being on top of a ball earth with upside down people down under.  

Anyway, I'm trying to use the term "BALL EARTH" more often now because I do believe the flat earth model with a dome firmament is basically a snow globe so the term globe can be misunderstood as Ladislaus pointed out.




Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #204 on: September 28, 2022, 11:50:53 PM »
I do not believe in an expanding universe for that would suggest it is infinite. A heliocentric universe could be said to be infinite. A geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite.


I'm not understanding why a geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite??

Is there a globe that surrounds the ball earth?

Is that where Heaven begins?

Is there "outer space"?

Are there other galaxies with their own suns?

Those things are not possible with a firmament.