One more answer: Flat earth is an extraordinary claim. There is no evidence for a flat earth. Not even a consistent model. Heed your own advice! Don't boast without extraordinary evidence.

And note: You are spilling manure over many church fathers and doctors, over bishops and popes, when defending a flat earth. Are you a housewife?

Flat earth is not an extraordinary claim. The globalist ball and its luciferian history is not just off the charts ridiculous, but a tool to destroy body and soul.  Just because its sat in the cat bird seat for a few hundred years doesn't mean its true.  There is only evidence for flat earth and no evidence for the globe.  This discussion has been going on for a couple years now.  You ought to catch up first before making yourself look bad.    

Flat earth is not an extraordinary claim. The globalist ball and its luciferian history is not just off the charts ridiculous, but a tool to destroy body and soul.  Just because its sat in the cat bird seat for a few hundred years doesn't mean its true.  There is only evidence for flat earth and no evidence for the globe.  This discussion has been going on for a couple years now.  You ought to catch up first before making yourself look bad.    

I have watched the renewal of the flat-earth-movement in recent years (there had been a flat earth society in Britain long before). As far as I can see, it is obviously created to be used as a tool of desinformation to slander all kinds of contemporaries who are waking up to the fact, that democracy as well as communism are a facades, and to many other facts not taught in schools. Democracy has been instituted in the western world by jews/illuminati/masons/... since 1776 and 1789. Communism came later, and is a hierarchical system like the masons and related lodge systems.

Even before the new flat-earth-movement on youtube etc. appeared, at least decades before, anyone defending the true church, inquistion, etc. was slandered with the absurd idea, in "dark medieval times" (i.e. in catholic times, before Weishaupts illuminati arrived)*  folks had believed in a flat earth.

So, in my view, you are a "useful idiot" of the foes of the Church. Note: I don't intend to offend you. I just frankly say how things look to me.



*) the "dark medieval times" denote the 1000 years of the catholic Holy Roman Empire in Europe
from Karl der Große crowned in Rome at December 25, A.D. 800
to Kaiser Franz II cease-fire of Steyr against Napolean at December 25, A.D. 1800

Yes roughly only one order of magnitude less than today. In the 17th century Giovanni Domenico Cassini had the distance within roughly -10% of today.


Could you please give me all (or at least some) of your examples (continuously? must be quite a lot) where Robert Sungenis is proven wrong about the history of the Fathers.


Wholeheartedly sorry to disappoint you, but I already did. Here an example:

In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" of the late St. Augustin we read about the earth having the form of a sphere and being lit such that there is day on one and night on the other side (book 1, chapter 12, section 25).

Post here what St. Augustine actually said, not just a paraphrased version, please.
Here's where Robert Sungenis is wrong about the Fathers:
 
Robert Sungenis provides a list of 16 Fathers of the Church that he claims taught earth is a globe. The problem is, the list is provably inaccurate.
  On the list is Arnobius. Wiki gives some insight.
“The work of Arnobius appears to have been written when he was a recent convert, for he does not possess a very extensive knowledge of Scripture. He knows nothing of the Old Testament, and only the life of Christ in the New, while he does not quote directly from the Gospels. He was much influenced by Lucretius and had read Plato. His statements concerning Greek and Roman mythology are based respectively on the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria, and on Cornelius Labeo, who belonged to the preceding generation and attempted to restore Neoplatonism.[10]”
Without knowledge of Scripture, any discussion of the shape of the earth by Arnobius would not be authoritative.
Sungenis lists St Athanasius as a globe earther, yet that claim is proven quite a stretch.  Wiki places St. Athanasius with flat earthers and we can see its highly questionable that the saint taught earth is a globe.  Below is a quote from St. Anthanasius and beyond that is an excerpt from Wiki.

Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)

Diodorus of Tarsus, a leading figure in the School of Antioch and mentor of John Chrysostom, may have argued for a flat Earth; however, Diodorus’ opinion on the matter is known only from a later criticism.[88] Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament.[89] Athanasius the Great, Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria, expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen.[90]
Regarding Athanasius’ claim that earth is set on the waters (under the firmament) and not in space, we see that Sungenis has a problem because this description is of a flat earth, not a globe.  But that St. Athanasius says the earth is “bound fast” also shows that he did not teach that the earth was a ball hanging in space.  Scripture says the earth is with a foundation, bound to the firmament at the edges, firmly fixed, and even quotes God saying, “I have bound it (heaven and earth) like a square block of stone”.
Also on Sungenis’ list includes St. Cyril of Jerusalem as having taught the globe. Well, not so much, as we see below.
Wiki
“J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary
 Systems’, (1906)” A limited preview is here, and Severian is on p.211-2
 A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters 1, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,2, in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that.
 1 Catechesis, ix., Opera, Oxford, 1703, p. 116.
 2 Joh. Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. (Paris, 1724), p. 436 sqq. Compare also the extracts given by Kosmas, pp. 320-325.
No glober teaches that there is a body of water above earth or in space.
 Further explanation tells us:
The literal interpretation of the Bible was totally
 followed by the leaders of the Syrian Church,
 who accepted only the cosmogony of the Genesis.
 Some contemporaries of Basil, Cyril of
 Jerusalem and Severian of Gabala agreed with the
 creation of the world according the Genesis.
 The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent, a tabernacle,
 a vault, or a curtain. The earth is flat and the
 sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels
 through the northern parts, hidden by a wall.
So, Sungenis’ claims about St. Cyril are definitely a problem as he is known to  teach flat earth cosmogony: the firmament as a tent, like a tabernacle, etc.  Such descriptions do not describe features of a globe.
 Another Saint on Sungenis’ list of Fathers who taught that earth is a globe is St. Clement of Alexandria.  Again, Sungenis’ information is inaccurate.

“Other notable Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth are Theophilus of Antioch in the second century and Clement of Alexandria in the third, based on the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, both taught that spread over the earth was a solid vault, “a firmament,” and they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out “like a curtain,” and again “like a tent to dwell in.”
–A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
 by  Andrew Dickson White
 Historian

Another on Sungenis’ list is Eusebius.
 While the following statement is not clear as to what he exactly believed, this is what historian Andrew Dickson White tells us about Eusebius: References below may add more information.
A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view (spherical earth), but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, “It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things.” Basil of Caesarea declared it “a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan.” Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as “bad and senseless,” and opposed the doctrine of the earth’s sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the “lute of the Holy Ghost,” opposed it no less earnestly.
(27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the
 Hexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.
 3; also citations in Whewell , Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.
 i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.
 For the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great
 churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.nklhlbl
Another Father on Sungenis’ list is Gregory Thaumaturgus, yet Gregory was a student of Origen, who was an ardent flat earther and who taught that the firmament was without doubt a solid structure above the earth through which rain passed.  Although this isn’t exactly proof Gregory wasn’t a globe promoter, with the errors Sungenis has found himself immersed in already doesn’t bode well for his claim.  Note the glowing sentiment of Gregory for Origen:
In his panegyric on Origen, Gregory describes the method employed by that master to win the confidence and esteem of those he wished to convert; how he mingled a persuasive candour with outbursts of temper and theological argument put cleverly at once and unexpectedly. Persuasive skill rather than bare reasoning, and evident sincerity and an ardent conviction were the means Origen used to make converts. Gregory took up at first the study of philosophy; theology was afterwards added, but his mind remained always inclined to philosophical study, so much so indeed that in his youth he cherished strongly the hope of demonstrating that the Christian religion was the only true and good philosophy. For seven years he underwent the mental and moral discipline of Origen (231 to 238 or 239).
 Before leaving Palestine, Gregory delivered in presence of Origen a public farewell oration in which he returned thanks to the illustrious master he was leaving.
 From Wiki
Also on Sungenis’ list is St. Jerome.  And yet we have information from Wiki telling us that St. Jerome did believed in the flat earth.

“Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus–present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)–in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church’s master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen’s fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as “qui tenet gyrum terrae.”29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, “dwells,” to sedet, “sits.”30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth.” 32

We also know that St. Jerome taught, based on Scripture, that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth; which is totally impossible on a globe.
The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city.   Throughout the “ages of faith” this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth’s form.   St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth’s centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, “Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth”; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, “As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth,” – “so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth.” Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
 Sungenis quotes St. Ambrose as though the Saint is teaching the spherical earth.
From Sungenis’ Book, The Consensus of the Fathers: Earth is a Sphere
 Pg 97  Sungenis tries to infer Ambrose is a globe earther.

 Ambrose:
 “They ask us to concede to them the heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere of the earth remains motionless, so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heaven as it revolved would cause these to flow off.  They wish, in fact, that we grant them their premise and that our reply be based on their beliefs.  In this way they would avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and that height and depth, a fact which no one can comprehend except Him who is filled with the fullness of the Godhead, as the Apostle says.
 ————————————————————————————————————————————-

Anyone with half a brain can see that St. Ambrose is saying that “they” (pagans) ask “us” (Catholics) to concede to them that heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere the earth remains motionless.  And Ambrose tells us why.  “so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heaven as it revolved would cause these to flow off.”
This entire statement of St. Ambrose’s is his contention against the their globe and describes the firmament with the waters above. St. Ambrose is telling us about what “they” believe and what their purpose is in believing it.  And yet, Sungenis has the word “sphere” in italics as if St. Ambrose is teaching the sphere himself.  Sungenis sees the word “sphere” or “globe” and he jumps on the quote without discernment, which invariably destroys his argument.  This is a common mistake by those who have a preconceived idea that earth is a globe.
St Ambrose goes on to say that pagans say all this about the sphere to avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and height and depth (of earth)  a fact which no on can fully comprehend, except God.
St Ambrose speaks of the firmament as well, saying that it is solid, something Sungenis somehow misses.
 St Ambrose comments on Genesis 1:6, saying, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60).
The firmament and waters above earth are a deal killers for globe promoters and Sungenis prefers to sweep all this information under the globe.

Post here what St. Augustine actually said, not just a paraphrased version, please.

Although water still covered all the earth, there was nothing to prevent the massive watery sphere from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light. Thus, in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other.

St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis

.
Why would Church Fathers teach something like an earth that would require spherical trigonometry to navigate when spherical trigonometry had not yet been developed?
.
BTW, don't bother looking for "sphere" in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures because they had no word for sphere or globe in ancient Hebrew, as Sungenis explains in his new book. Nor did they have a word for trigonometry. Consequently, they had no term equivalent to spherical trigonometry, even though it did not exist yet. They didn't have words for lots of things that DID exist: why would they have had words for things that did not exist? 

.
.
If any of the Church Fathers had had the means we have today to measure and ascertain the movements of the celestial bodies they would have had no problem with universal agreement regarding the sphericity of the earth. We should give them credit for doing the best they could with what they had to work with, especially regarding a topic that is not essential to the Faith.
.
.

No, Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth.

Well, you contradict the long entry which you yourself posted earlier, which is trying to refute Sungenis based on the very idea which you now deny. That post apparently was a copy and paste without using "quote"-tags and without giving the source, anyway.

What do you expect me to comment, when you contradict yourself? What terms are appropriate to name someone in a case like that?

The rest of your post shows that you don't even take notice of the content of my posts. Or at least you hide it. Feels like talking to a concrete wall. You have to deal with what folks say to you, in case you don't want to appear like a robot spitting at humans.

My bad.  I didn't add the two words "from Scripture" to: Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth.  No contradiction.  Sungenis doesn't believe Scripture says anything about the form of the earth.  The Fathers say otherwise.

.
The Church Fathers have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
They had no comprehension of the topic and their perception was quite limited.
What they have to offer is in regards to spiritual matters and moral issues, which have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
.
Sungenis refers to the Church Fathers in regards to faith and morals, but if he ever refers to them regarding the shape of the earth he's making a big mistake, and he gets what he deserves.
.
Scripture has utterly nothing to do with the shape of the earth, and any who think it does are deluding themselves.