Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Fluidicpuppet on April 09, 2020, 09:36:51 AM
-
I am completely convinced of a stationary earth and Geocentrism, and open to but not really convinced of flat earth yet. What are some Saints, and quotes from them, showing they believed in a flat earth, and ideally why.
-
I am completely convinced of a stationary earth and Geocentrism, and open to but not really convinced of flat earth yet. What are some Saints, and quotes from them, showing they believed in a flat earth, and ideally why.
‘It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters - Leukippos and Demokritos for example - by the time of Eratosthenes (3c. BC), followed by Crates (2c. BC), Strabo (3c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans. Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few at least two and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.’ --- Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
-
‘It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters - Leukippos and Demokritos for example - by the time of Eratosthenes (3c. BC), followed by Crates (2c. BC), Strabo (3c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans. Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few at least two and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.’ --- Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
This is what I had heard I was just looking to see if flat earth people could prove it wrong, it appears not.
-
There really is no question that The Bible does.
" The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book."
"In my view, all arguments to prove the Bible teaches a spherical earth are weak if not wrong- headed. On the other hand, the flat-earth cosmology previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity."
taken from, "The Flat Earth Bible," by Robert Schadewald
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
-
There really is no question that The Bible does.
" The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book."
"In my view, all arguments to prove the Bible teaches a spherical earth are weak if not wrong- headed. On the other hand, the flat-earth cosmology previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity."
taken from, "The Flat Earth Bible," by Robert Schadewald
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
You are citing an author with an agenda that makes him untrustworthy. He was writing to disprove the authority of Scripture:
Some readers have misinterpreted this docuмent, supposing that Bob Schadewald is defending the idea that the earth is flat. That was not his intent. Some fundamentalist Christians are uncomfortable with the many passages in the Old Testament that seem to support the flat earth model, clearly contradicting abundant scientific evidence that the earth is a round and spinning ball. See: Is the earth a round, spinning ball (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm). So they rationalize and re-interpret these passages to defend their faith that their Bible is without error. Bob, in this essay, tries to show that they can't get away with this cheap trick, for the writers of the Bible really did believe the earth to be flat.
As is clear in this excerpt, and even more so in the article itself, he is talking about fundamentalist Protestants. People who interpret Scripture in isolation from Catholic tradition very well might conclude that the earth is flat. However, this is not an approach that Catholics ought to be taking.
-
I am completely convinced of a stationary earth and Geocentrism, and open to but not really convinced of flat earth yet. What are some Saints, and quotes from them, showing they believed in a flat earth, and ideally why.
Here is a good quote as to how Catholics should look at this topic, the bold parts especially:
Basil, Hexaemeron: “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.”
-
Here is a good quote as to how Catholics should look at this topic, the bold parts especially:
Obviously, Basil's point is being missed here, since the shape of the earth does matter. Just not in the context in which he's speaking. We can be sure that at least one of the popular models is false.
-
Obviously, Basil's point is being missed here, since the shape of the earth does matter. Just not in the context in which he's speaking. We can be sure that at least one of the popular models is false.
There is no reason that people can't discuss it as a matter of science. But it is common for flat earth proponents on this forum (and presumably elsewhere) to claim that it is spiritually superior to believe in flat earth. St. Basil's teaching makes that position untenable.
-
Flat earth can and should be discussed in light of earlier Christians teachings and beliefs in order to get to the truth of the matter. Dismissing the possibility of a flat earth by making heliocentrism and the globe earth a forgone conclusion is neither scientific nor spiritual.
-
Flat earth can and should be discussed in light of earlier Christians teachings and beliefs in order to get to the truth of the matter. Dismissing the possibility of a flat earth by making heliocentrism and the globe earth a forgone conclusion is neither scientific nor spiritual.
Both St. Basil and St. Augustine taught that shape of the earth has no spiritual significance and that Scripture is silent on the subject. This belief has persisted throughout the history of the Church and is repeated in magisterial docuмents. Starting with St. Bede around 700 AD the shape of the earth was unambiguously treated as a matter of science. The science accepted by Catholics from this point on was globe earth. (The line between science and religion was more complicated with geocentrism, but heliocentrism became acceptable in the 1700s.)
A discussion of earlier Christian teaching and beliefs supports the position of Sts. Basil and Augustine. The shape of the earth is not part of the faith and does not matter to the faith. If you want to discuss the science with no forgone conclusion, go ahead. You are free to believe flat earth as far as the Church cares, but you can't claim it is a Catholic belief or teaching.
-
The significance of discovering the truth should include writings of all the Fathers and saints because there are contexts like Basil's statement that do not reflect the questions involved. Can we dismiss everything based on one statement? Also, St. Augustine leaned heavier toward flat earth than the globe, as well as other Fathers who describe a flat geocentric earth. It is definitely true that science is an important consideration because people ignore the subtleties of the discussion: That a firmament dome is inconsistent with a globe and a millions of miles away sun. Dismissing clues is common among those who've made up their mind to accept the heliocentric model but then, that won't necessarily reflect the truth.
-
The significance of discovering the truth should include writings of all the Fathers and saints because there are contexts like Basil's statement that do not reflect the questions involved. Can we dismiss everything based on one statement? Also, St. Augustine leaned heavier toward flat earth than the globe, as well as other Fathers who describe a flat geocentric earth. It is definitely true that science is an important consideration because people ignore the subtleties of the discussion: That a firmament dome is inconsistent with a globe and a millions of miles away sun. Dismissing clues is common among those who've made up their mind to accept the heliocentric model but then, that won't necessarily reflect the truth.
The majority of scholars consider St. Augustine to have believed in globe earth and that is my own impression from reading various passages. There is one major Augustinian scholar who claims that he believed in flat earth. The reason it is debatable is that Augustine did not make any direct statements on the issue. Because he did not think it had any spiritual significance.
There are, at most, five Fathers who wrote about the earth being flat. Some of these statements are ambiguous. There are perhaps two of them that are clear. The idea that there is support for flat earth among the Fathers is an exaggeration, originally promoted by anti-Catholics to discredit us.
St. John of Damascus wrote a summary of the teaching of the Fathers which, coming from a Doctor of the Church, is a highly credible source. He said that some Fathers believed the earth to be flat, some believed it was a globe, but that it is a matter of no significance.
Personally, I don't care much about the shape of the earth either. My interest in this subject is that I do not want to see Church teaching misrepresented. I don't care if you think the earth is flat. Just don't say that this is a Catholic teaching or that it was the consensus of the Church Fathers.
-
The majority of scholars consider St. Augustine to have believed in globe earth and that is my own impression from reading various passages. There is one major Augustinian scholar who claims that he believed in flat earth. The reason it is debatable is that Augustine did not make any direct statements on the issue. Because he did not think it had any spiritual significance.
There are, at most, five Fathers who wrote about the earth being flat. Some of these statements are ambiguous. There are perhaps two of them that are clear. The idea that there is support for flat earth among the Fathers is an exaggeration, originally promoted by anti-Catholics to discredit us.
St. John of Damascus wrote a summary of the teaching of the Fathers which, coming from a Doctor of the Church, is a highly credible source. He said that some Fathers believed the earth to be flat, some believed it was a globe, but that it is a matter of no significance.
Personally, I don't care much about the shape of the earth either. My interest in this subject is that I do not want to see Church teaching misrepresented. I don't care if you think the earth is flat. Just don't say that this is a Catholic teaching or that it was the consensus of the Church Fathers.
I'm interested in hearing about the majority of scholars that consider St. Augustine believed in the globe earth philosophy/science. Who are they? Who are the 5 Fathers who wrote about the flat earth? What anti-Catholics are using Fathers to discredit us?
I agree, I don't want the Church teaching misrepresented!
-
I'm interested in hearing about the majority of scholars that consider St. Augustine believed in the globe earth philosophy/science. Who are they? Who are the 5 Fathers who wrote about the flat earth? What anti-Catholics are using Fathers to discredit us?
I agree, I don't want the Church teaching misrepresented!
I've written lots in this subforum already. Please do a search through my old posts. I don't really have time to redo it all.
-
With little or unimpressive contrary information, along with weak non responses, I'm becoming convinced of a flat geocentric earth.
-
With little or unimpressive contrary information, along with weak non responses, I'm becoming convinced of a flat geocentric earth.
I believe it was St Augustine who warned Catholics not to bring the Catholic faith into disrepute by way of false interpretations of Scripture or Catholic beliefs.
History records the damage heliocentrism did to human belief in the supernatural. When both in Church and state accepted the lie that science had falsified the geocentrism of Scripture, and that this new 'science' should be used to interpret Scripture, the supernaturalism of the Creation by God was replaced by a secular, naturalistic evolution of creation. Beginning with popes accepting a solar system the Church had defined as formal heresy, they then had to accept its evolution by way of the Nebular theory. From then on EVOLUTION became the truth and popes had to try to make this no-need-for-a- God-evolution a God-driven-evolution. When in 1951 or so, Pope Piuis XII went before the PAS and tried to convince all the Big Bang was God's way of Creation, followed by every pope since, this led to Pope Francis telling all 'God in not a magician, he cannot wave a wand and all appears created. The only way such creation can happen is by way of an evolved creation. Yes, they are all into Teilhard de Chardin now. Throughout these centuries, billions dismissed a supernatural cause and became non believers. The latest for scientistsd is that only about 7% of them are still believers, the rest atheists.
Now that the deductive method of science has shown geocentrism was never proven wrong, with all the evidence pointing to a geocentric biblical world, it is time again for Satan to try to undermine the new faith in a geocentric Genesis. This can be seen in tradman's new found belief in flat-Earth geocentrism which he has been convinced has biblical backing. This joke of flat Earthism will now bring geocentrism down to its level. St Augustine must be shaking in his grave.
Only if ALL of the Fathers had the same understanding of the Bible was that understanding a truth of faith. Now if some Fathers believed in a flat earth, so what. They lived in ancient times, long before the science of geodesy, long before satellites showed us the curve of the Earth. And please do not insult us by saying all those satellites that allow CIF members all around the world to communicate with each other do not exist, or that the earth curves shown are manufactured to fool mankind or whatever.
But there is further proof that a flat-earth was never Church teaching according to the Bible or philosophy. For 300 years the Church fought off the Pythagorean heresies, both doctrinal and philosophical. Bruno ended up burned at the stake for holding on to some of them, heresies and philosophical errors that have beern indulged in by popes since 1835 as though they were never condemned in the first place. When the heliocentric heresy was adopted so too came all the other heresies back, heresies like many worlds with intelligent life on them. If the inductive method can find a heresy false today, well then, it never existed in the first place. Now that is some Catholicism. Now it was Pythagoras who was one of the first philosophers who said the Earth is a globe. Yet not once in 500 years did the Church ever challenge this Pythagorean belief while condemning many of the others. So to say the Bible says the Earth is flat is to say the Church got it wrong and allowed a false belief to be believed by mankind.
Now you can believe in a flat Earth if you want, but do not undermine the doctrine of geocentrism of 1835 years, a dogma defined and declared by Pope Paul V in 1616, by attaching the flat-Earth belief to it. I am a biblical and scientific geocentrist and I have no time for those who try to make a flat Earth Catholic.
-
While I do not go as far as cassini and do not identify myself as a geocentrist, I respect his opinion on the subject. I consider him to be taking a reasonable position in terms of Catholic theology and history.
We should not conflate geocentrism with flat earth. The former is the historic belief of Catholics, the latter is not.
-
I'm interested in hearing about the majority of scholars that consider St. Augustine believed in the globe earth philosophy/science. Who are they? Who are the 5 Fathers who wrote about the flat earth? What anti-Catholics are using Fathers to discredit us?
I agree, I don't want the Church teaching misrepresented!
Those Church Fathers who taught a flat earth are easily dismissed as being not the least bit relevant to any kind of reality, since these don't have the approval of the globe earthers here.
The Church does not teach that the earth is a globe. We are free to speculate. But.... in order to shut down the discussion, the globe earthers will say that we are not allowed to use Church teachings, Scripture, or the Fathers in order to show a flat earth. They cannot allow the discussion, so they resort to their usual tactics.
JayneK is a special forum member, and as such, she's allowed to post whatever she likes. Including telling other Catholics what they (we) are supposed to believe or not believe, since she is a theologian.
-
I believe it was St Augustine who warned Catholics not to bring the Catholic faith into disrepute by way of false interpretations of Scripture or Catholic beliefs.
History records the damage heliocentrism did to human belief in the supernatural. When both in Church and state accepted the lie that science had falsified the geocentrism of Scripture, and that this new 'science' should be used to interpret Scripture, the supernaturalism of the Creation by God was replaced by a secular, naturalistic evolution of creation. Beginning with popes accepting a solar system the Church had defined as formal heresy, they then had to accept its evolution by way of the Nebular theory. From then on EVOLUTION became the truth and popes had to try to make this no-need-for-a- God-evolution a God-driven-evolution. When in 1951 or so, Pope Piuis XII went before the PAS and tried to convince all the Big Bang was God's way of Creation, followed by every pope since, this led to Pope Francis telling all 'God in not a magician, he cannot wave a wand and all appears created. The only way such creation can happen is by way of an evolved creation. Yes, they are all into Teilhard de Chardin now. Throughout these centuries, billions dismissed a supernatural cause and became non believers. The latest for scientistsd is that only about 7% of them are still believers, the rest atheists.
Now that the deductive method of science has shown geocentrism was never proven wrong, with all the evidence pointing to a geocentric biblical world, it is time again for Satan to try to undermine the new faith in a geocentric Genesis. This can be seen in tradman's new found belief in flat-Earth geocentrism which he has been convinced has biblical backing. This joke of flat Earthism will now bring geocentrism down to its level. St Augustine must be shaking in his grave.
Only if ALL of the Fathers had the same understanding of the Bible was that understanding a truth of faith. Now if some Fathers believed in a flat earth, so what. They lived in ancient times, long before the science of geodesy, long before satellites showed us the curve of the Earth. And please do not insult us by saying all those satellites that allow CIF members all around the world to communicate with each other do not exist, or that the earth curves shown are manufactured to fool mankind or whatever.
But there is further proof that a flat-earth was never Church teaching according to the Bible or philosophy. For 300 years the Church fought off the Pythagorean heresies, both doctrinal and philosophical. Bruno ended up burned at the stake for holding on to some of them, heresies and philosophical errors that have beern indulged in by popes since 1835 as though they were never condemned in the first place. When the heliocentric heresy was adopted so too came all the other heresies back, heresies like many worlds with intelligent life on them. If the inductive method can find a heresy false today, well then, it never existed in the first place. Now that is some Catholicism. Now it was Pythagoras who was one of the first philosophers who said the Earth is a globe. Yet not once in 500 years did the Church ever challenge this Pythagorean belief while condemning many of the others. So to say the Bible says the Earth is flat is to say the Church got it wrong and allowed a false belief to be believed by mankind.
Now you can believe in a flat Earth if you want, but do not undermine the doctrine of geocentrism of 1835 years, a dogma defined and declared by Pope Paul V in 1616, by attaching the flat-Earth belief to it. I am a biblical and scientific geocentrist and I have no time for those who try to make a flat Earth Catholic.
Geocentrism and flat earth comprise one model and the spinning ball another, even though confusion about a dangling ball seems to some to be tenable to some. I was taught as a kid that earth "spin" helped keep everything stuck to the earth. Now that that particular notion is no longer used much, the geocentric ball earthers have no explanation for how things stick to opposite sides of a ball, not to mention water. Star movement is impossible for the sphere earth unless earth spins, which it does not. With or without spin star progression patterns wouldn't rotate night after night around Polaris since most would disappear around the opposite side of the sphere each night. But they do not. Polaris is seen by both Britain and America on the same night, hardly possible on a ball earth. Star trails affirm this as well. The moon is visible equally at night to most nations all over the world at the same time, although at different heights, as experiments with pictures posted at the same time online proven with people from Australia, England, America, Africa, South America and the Philippines reporting simultaneously as I've participated in these experiments. This is impossible if earth is a ball since half the nations would not be able to see it when the other half are viewing it. I find it worth the time to delve into the subject.