CathInfo.com

So why did nearly all ancient cultures conclude that the earth is flat and motionless ... unless Matthew's statement is true (and yours false) that everything about our senses indicates flat stationary earth.  Those cultures were far more attuned to nature and far more observant of natural phenomena than we are ... and they weren't idiots.  In fact, the only likely explanation for how so many cultures developed a similar cosmology is that they received the knowledge handed down ultimately from Adam, who had perfect knowledge of God's creation ... not unlike how a unanimous consensus of the Curch Fathers can established handed-down (aka revealed) doctrine.

That's an important point, that is easily overlooked: past cultures weren't idiots.

Oh, but "muh iPhone"

Yes, we have some impressive technology, but A) that technology came from TRUE SCIENCE and not from belief in outer space, aliens, heliocentrism, evolution, the Big Bang, or any other nonsense. And B) aside from those who build/understand said technology, the average person USING it (i.e., the average iPhone user, tiktok personality, onlyfans model) is far BELOW the average person of centuries past, in terms of what they can do, what they understand, how clearly they think, etc.

When you have a materialist, evolutionist mindset, you believe mankind is getting better and better, ever onward and upward. And that whatever past cultures believed or did was inherently inferior, because they were less intelligent and less evolved. But the opposite is the case. We are DE-volving, if anything. We are actually rushing headlong into a dystopian future like Wall-E or Idiocracy.

Believing past cultures were ignorant/stupid is halfway to full atheism and believing in godless, materialist "molecules to man" macro-evolution. It's also extremely anti-Catholic. The middle ages were the highest point of the Age of Faith.
But you do you, bro.

Why is it among some Catholics on CIF, and indeed on every other Catholic forum that when you explain Modernism began with the 1820 U-turn by Pope Pius VII they immediately reject this truth, as the thumbs downer gave my post above? The object of a forum is to state your opinion why you disagree. Is the thumbs down because the truth should be kept a secret so that the pre-Vatican II popes can be hidden from any such evidence of going along with the first step to Modernism, the 'Synthesis of all Heresies' that caused the loss of millions of souls?  What is more important for Catholicism today, to restore the truth or to carry on eliminating the supernatural and promoting a natural version of the dogma of Creation? Having studied the history of Modernism as it gets worse and worse from the mouths of popes, some even considered saints, I can see how one could question some teachings of the Catholic Church itself. Pope Pius VII began the rot that got worse and worse with changes to Scripture brought about by scientific illusions. This necessitated two encyclicals having to be written to try to stop the rot but because they both promoted the exegesis and hermeneutics of Galileo as Catholic teaching they made things worse. Imagine Vatican II in its Gaudium et spes #36 actually inferred all the Fathers and churchmen of Trent were wrong in their meaning of Scripture and caused great harm to the Church. Pius VII's promotion of heliocentrism based on the lies of a Fr Olivieri caused all the early Church condemnations against natural evolution, heliocentrism and aliens to be hidden away in a Catholic heresy waste basket, so that popes from Pius XII  at least could try to make these unknown heresies look Catholic. Gone are all homilies on Creation as no pope now believes in a six-day Creation anymore. After that Ratzinger said Original Sin was absurd, and now the Vatican are looking for aliens, one of the heresies Bruno was burned for promoting.