Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: happenby on February 10, 2018, 10:41:35 AM
-
Back to the Providentissimus Deus discussion
https://archive.org/details/ DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogm a (https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma)
This is the oldest version of the PD encyclical I have found.
Translated by Roy J Deferrari
The quote:
"..the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not intend to teach these things (...) as being of no profit to salvation..."
Now, look at the Vatican's modern-day version:
"...Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (...) things in no way profitable unto salvation.
The first version reads: God did not intend to teach as if the things of the natural world DON'T MATTER to salvation. But the second one, by repeating the word THINGS, makes it read as if God did not intend to teach the things of the natural world AT ALL because they DON'T MATTER to salvation.
This subtle deceptive change of adding words (the version on the Vatican website) imparts a different meaning to the text.
All the more reason for people to take care to go to antiquity for reliable sources.
-
It doesn't matter because, as you keep forgetting, he is quoting St. Augustine's "De Genesi Ad Litteram". In St. Augustine's work, Bk. 2: Ch.9, it says "Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation."
It definitely means these subjects (eg. shape of the Earth)are of no use for our salvation.
Oh, it matters, because one quote comes from an encyclical, and the other is from St. Augustine. The encyclical takes precedence. Beyond that, the fact that translators messed with the encyclical means we need to take care with all versions until the verbiage can be determined as original.
-
It doesn't matter because, as you keep forgetting, he is quoting St. Augustine's "De Genesi Ad Litteram". In St. Augustine's work, Bk. 2: Ch.9, it says "Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation."
It definitely means these subjects (eg. shape of the Earth)are of no use for our salvation.
Reference link please.
-
This is only a problem for people with an extreme "dogmatic" flat Earth bias. At best, your opinion can be construed as saying that Pope Leo intentionally misquoted St. Augustine. At worst, for you, Pope Leo definitely taught these issues are useless for us, just like the Fathers I've quoted. Either way you have no credibility.
Pope Leo's XIII's encyclical does not misquote St. Augustine. Translators show obvious deviancy from maintaining truth. Pope Leo XIII taught that Scriptural cosmological teachings are helpful for salvation, as did Augustine. And it stands to reason they do. Saying that cosmology or metaphysics are not helpful to salvation is the most outrageous and anti-Catholic thing I've seen in a long time. Wisdom is the name for knowledge of first principles, as in Genesis. As I've shown before regarding metaphysics, Fr. Ripperger explains: "People's denial of the knowledge of God, or that you can come to a knowledge of God, is rooted in certain metaphysical problems in relationship to reality. The common teaching among philosophers is, "What your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understanding of what actually God is. Due to modern philosophers, People's understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."
-
It doesn't matter because, as you keep forgetting, he is quoting St. Augustine's "De Genesi Ad Litteram". In St. Augustine's work, Bk. 2: Ch.9, it says "Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation."
It definitely means these subjects (eg. shape of the Earth)are of no use for our salvation.
ANOTHER VERSION?
Gee, how many times did the Church rewrite PD??
-
You lost me. What are you talking about?
He is talking about the attempt to skew what PD was saying. But saying it doesn't matter won't work because metaphysics and cosmology are very important to the Church and are reflected in a myriad of teachings.
-
There is no attempt to skew PD. PD is directly quoting St. Augustine. To anyone who doesn't have an extreme FE bias or a deliberate will to obfuscate the whole situation, it's clear that both St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII, who is quoting him, taught that questions like "what shape is the Earth/Heaven?" are useless for us in regards to our Salvation.
Um, too late. Its proven by the addition of words in later translations that clearly show an attempt to change what PD is saying. Also, it is proven that metaphysics and cosmology are necessary, which means Augustine and Leo XIII would not have said otherwise.
-
De Genesi Ad Litteram-St. Augustine (https://books.google.com/books?id=_s0kIgD0nCcC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22Hence,+I+must+say+briefly+that+in+the+matter+of+the+shape+of+heaven+the+sacred+writers+knew+the+truth,+but+that+the+Spirit+of+God,+who+spoke+through+them,+did+not+wish+to+teach+men+these+facts+that+would+be+of+no+avail+for+their+salvation.%22&source=bl&ots=A8Q4xa-W58&sig=Pky_draWguC_g1-Q6Mo22M3rY6c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi08sGT-ZvZAhUk9YMKHUThDAsQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Hence%2C%20I%20must%20say%20briefly%20that%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20the%20shape%20of%20heaven%20the%20sacred%20writers%20knew%20the%20truth%2C%20but%20that%20the%20Spirit%20of%20God%2C%20who%20spoke%20through%20them%2C%20did%20not%20wish%20to%20teach%20men%20these%20facts%20that%20would%20be%20of%20no%20avail%20for%20their%20salvation.%22&f=false)
Also, when you get to it, scroll down a little in Chapter 10 and you'll see the words: "but I have no further time to go into these questions and discuss them, nor should they have time whom I wish to see instructed for their own salvation and for what is necessary and useful in the Church".
Why would Pope Leo quote St. Augustine only to convey the exact opposite of what he's saying.
A little further down Augustine says: They must certainly bear in mind that the term "firmament" does not compel us to imagine a stationary heaven: we may understand this name as given to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below."
This, a flat earth teaching from Augustine destroys the globe, what with no boundary, no dome, and no water above. Um. Yea.
-
You are so desperate to be "right", you have resorted to posting explicitly false information. How sad for you.
I do not care about being right. I care about truth. Please show what I said that was false.
-
This subtle deceptive change of adding words (the version on the Vatican website) imparts a different meaning to the text.
All the more reason for people to take care to go to antiquity for reliable sources.
I predicted a couple of days ago that somebody would attack PD on the grounds it appeared on the Vatican website.
The best way to tell which translation is better would be to compare it against the Latin. For those who do not know Latin, the next best way is to do what An Even Seven did and compare it to the passages it quotes from.
Assuming that the older translation is better and taking advantage of an ambiguity in it to twist its meaning is not a good way to arrive at a correct understanding.
-
I predicted a couple of days ago that somebody would attack PD on the grounds it appeared on the Vatican website.
The best way to tell which translation is better would be to compare it against the Latin. For those who do not know Latin, the next best way is to do what An Even Seven did and compare it to the passages it quotes from.
Assuming that the older translation is better and taking advantage of an ambiguity in it to twist its meaning is not a good way to arrive at a correct understanding.
Actually, the Church teaches that when there are discrepancies, we must go to antiquity.
-
I predicted a couple of days ago that somebody would attack PD on the grounds it appeared on the Vatican website.
The best way to tell which translation is better would be to compare it against the Latin. For those who do not know Latin, the next best way is to do what An Even Seven did and compare it to the passages it quotes from.
Assuming that the older translation is better and taking advantage of an ambiguity in it to twist its meaning is not a good way to arrive at a correct understanding.
The older version is obviously the most accurate. Your "prediction" is meaningless because the more accurate version reveals better what is being said. I will always go there.
-
How about the part I wanted you to read,that you completely ignored because it completely destroys your argument that no matter his personal belief about the shape etc... he said this: "but I have no further time to go into these questions and discuss them, nor should they have time whom I wish to see instructed for their own salvation and for what is necessary and useful in the Church".
As to your solid firmament comment I will add these quotes:
Notice how St. Basil also says that to spend time on these matters would not be to the edification of the Church.
I didn't address it because you're trying to say that all these things written here that St. Augustine is saying, he has no time for. That's ridiculous. He's only saying that he's said all he wants to say about it. Metaphysics and cosmology are necessary for proper understanding of the world around us. Augustine would never contend otherwise. And neither would Pope Leo in his encyclical. And guess what? They don't.
-
Actually, the Church teaches that when there are discrepancies, we must go to antiquity.
There is no such teaching concerning translations.
There is only one version of the encyclical Providentissimus Deus. It was written in Latin and it has never been revised. Encyclicals do not get revised. It has been translated (not revised) into various languages at various times. One determines how good these translations are by comparing them to the original Latin. There is no Church teaching nor any reason to assume that an older translation is better.
-
There is no such teaching concerning translations.
There is only one version of the encyclical Providentissimus Deus. It was written in Latin and it has never been revised. Encyclicals do not get revised. It has been translated (not revised) into various languages at various times. One determines how good these translations are by comparing them to the original Latin. There is no Church teaching nor any reason to assume that an older translation is better.
The oldest translation trumps everything until we decipher the Latin. In the meantime, the discrepancies of translation make a clear indication that people are fudging words in order to change the meaning. Sure, we can go to the Latin. When you're done translating, get it verified by some reliable source and get back to us. And whoever translates ought to show translation regarding the sentence so we can all see for ourselves.
-
Then I guess you have a real problem with understanding words don't you? It's plain for all to see, they think these matters are not useful for one's salvation. We are not talking about all metaphysics and cosmology, we are talking about the shape of the Earth and Heavens etc...a.k.a. useless matters that the Spirit of God,did not wish to teach us through Scripture.
I don't care what "all see". Not to mention that is your interpretation. Even if every last person misses the point, the Church highly values metaphysics and cosmology insofar as they jive with Scripture, for the salvation of men. That is a fact. Your clouded view cannot change that.
-
The oldest translation trumps everything until we decipher the Latin. In the meantime, the discrepancies of translation make a clear indication that people are fudging words in order to change the meaning. Sure, we can go to the Latin. When you're done translating, get it verified by some reliable source and get back to us. And whoever translates ought to show translation regarding the sentence so we can all see for ourselves.
Apparently, when Ladislaus looked he could not find the Latin online. Even if we find it, there is no point in me translating it since you would reject it. You would need to provide an authority to verify it whom you would agree in advance to accept. I do not want to bother if you will just ignore it as you typically do.
-
Back to the Providentissimus Deus discussion
https://archive.org/details/ DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogm a (https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma)
This is the oldest version of the PD encyclical I have found.
Translated by Roy J Deferrari
The quote:
"..the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not intend to teach these things (...) as being of no profit to salvation..."
Now, look at the Vatican's modern-day version:
"...Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (...) things in no way profitable unto salvation.
The first version reads: God did not intend to teach as if the things of the natural world DON'T MATTER to salvation. But the second one, by repeating the word THINGS, makes it read as if God did not intend to teach the things of the natural world AT ALL because they DON'T MATTER to salvation.
This subtle deceptive change of adding words (the version on the Vatican website) imparts a different meaning to the text.
All the more reason for people to take care to go to antiquity for reliable sources.
Everyone needs to stop making arguments from translations. It's becoming highly annoying. Only the Latin represents the teaching of the Church. Every translation, to some extent, involves an interpretation.
But it's a simple fact that even if the Fathers were to have unanimously held that the earth is flat (and some Church Fathers did not), that does not by itself reveal a DOGMATIC consensus. There would have to be some notion that this was taught by the Church and handed down from the Apostles as part of the Deposit of Revelation.
All the quotes I have seen from the Church Fathers do not indicate anything more than that they are OPINING in favor of flat earth. I get annoyed when people keep using the word "taught" ... that such-and-such a Father "taught" flat earth. Saying or writing or thinking something doesn't necessarily rise to the level of teaching it.
-
It's not JUST the addition of the second "things" by the Vatican site that completely changes the meaning of PD.
It's that the ENTIRE encyclical reads totally differently in its original form.
In fact, it makes AES & Jaynek's claims even MORE wrong because the original encyclical reads as a MUCH stronger defense of LITERAL Scripture.
-
Actually, the Church teaches that when there are discrepancies, we must go to antiquity.
TRUTH.
-
This does NOT read like the Vatican version:
https://imgur.com/10kUeqw
https://imgur.com/7l8TjFs
-
Last page here:
https://imgur.com/dKSxj2x
-
Everyone needs to stop making arguments from translations. It's becoming highly annoying. Only the Latin represents the teaching of the Church. Every translation, to some extent, involves an interpretation.
But it's a simple fact that even if the Fathers were to have unanimously held that the earth is flat (and some Church Fathers did not), that does not by itself reveal a DOGMATIC consensus. There would have to be some notion that this was taught by the Church and handed down from the Apostles as part of the Deposit of Revelation.
All the quotes I have seen from the Church Fathers do not indicate anything more than that they are OPINING in favor of flat earth. I get annoyed when people keep using the word "taught" ... that such-and-such a Father "taught" flat earth. Saying or writing or thinking something doesn't necessarily rise to the level of teaching it.
Opining seems less accurate of a term because the Father's writings are always valuable. Even when they opine they are reasoning at least and teaching at best, (unless of course, it contradicts Church teaching). Truth from Scripture and Tradition is imparted to us by the Church. This is a centuries long process. When searching for truth in any age, since only one thing is true, what is contrary must be false. These threads on flat earth reveal the Church's position in a myriad of ways. But for those who cannot accept some, at the very least collectively, it shows a trajectory. Can the Church lead us in a direction and it not be 100% true? Metaphysics and cosmology shape our road to salvation, because they affect our bearings and our view of God and the world. Besides positive proof from Scripture, Fathers and even science, there is plenty of negative proof to assist in drawing a conclusion. The Church condemned the pagan heliocentric model. Seems in the meantime, the Church will war with false science to show the masses what She's been saying all along, and to more fully reveal the specifics of our origins first contained in God's Word.
-
Opining seems less accurate of a term because the Father's writings are always valuable. Even when they opine they are reasoning at least and teaching at best, (unless of course, it contradicts Church teaching). Truth from Scripture and Tradition is imparted to us by the Church. This is a centuries long process. When searching for truth in any age, since only one thing is true, what is contrary must be false. These threads on flat earth reveal the Church's position in a myriad of ways. But for those who cannot accept some, at the very least collectively, it shows a trajectory. Can the Church lead us in a direction and it not be 100% true? Metaphysics and cosmology shape our road to salvation, because they affect our bearings and our view of God and the world. Besides positive proof from Scripture, Fathers and even science, there is plenty of negative proof to assist in drawing a conclusion. The Church condemned the pagan heliocentric model. Seems in the meantime, the Church will war with false science to show the masses what She's been saying all along, and to more fully reveal the specifics of our origins first contained in God's Word.
The trajectory goes from mixed views on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period to a consensus that the earth is a sphere from St. Bede forward. There is no authoritative teaching or even a significant opinion that the earth is flat after that time. The condemnation of Copernican heliocentrism is irrelevant since the Church supported the Ptolemaic model (with its spherical earth) against it.
If one is looking for a direction in the Church's position, the direction does not support believing in flat earth.
-
The trajectory goes from mixed views on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period to a consensus that the earth is a sphere from St. Bede forward. There is no authoritative teaching or even a significant opinion that the earth is flat after that time. The condemnation of Copernican heliocentrism is irrelevant since the Church supported the Ptolemaic model (with its spherical earth) against it.
If one is looking for a direction in the Church's position, the direction does not support believing in flat earth.
Indeed, the one who has no Catholic support for their views on the shape of the earth is you Jayne. In fact, you hold the model the pagans always held. There is no authoritative teaching or even a significant opinion that earth is a globe, yet you hold it. And no, the occult that foisted the fake globe on Christendom has no significant opinion because they lie.
-
Indeed, the one who has no Catholic support for their views on the shape of the earth is you Jayne. In fact, you hold the model the pagans always held. There is no authoritative teaching or even a significant opinion that earth is a globe, yet you hold it. And no, the occult that foisted the fake globe on Christendom has no significant opinion because they lie.
And you hold the model that Eric Dubay holds. So what.
There is no authoritative teaching that the earth is flat, either. The only authoritative teaching related to this says that we should not be looking in Scripture for an answer.
You are not taking a Catholic position no matter what you tell yourself. You are simply wrong. It is good that you would like to support the Church against all the evil forces opposing her, but you are totally confused about how to do it. Your flat earth beliefs are not helping the Church. If anything, they harm us by making us look ridiculous.
-
And you hold the model that Eric Dubay holds. So what.
There is no authoritative teaching that the earth is flat, either. The only authoritative teaching related to this says that we should not be looking in Scripture for an answer.
You are not taking a Catholic position no matter what you tell yourself. You are simply wrong. It is good that you would like to support the Church against all the evil forces opposing her, but you are totally confused about how to do it. Your flat earth beliefs are not helping the Church. If anything, they harm us by making us look ridiculous.
Appearances appearances. You remind us constantly how you submit all your beliefs to human respect. I don't care if I look ridiculous; I will always spread the truth as far as I am able for the glory of God. Thanks be to God!
-
Appearances appearances. You remind us constantly how you submit all your beliefs to human respect. I don't care if I look ridiculous; I will always spread the truth as far as I am able for the glory of God. Thanks be to God!
Making yourself ridiculous in the cause of flat earth does not give glory to God.
We are fools in the eyes of many for believing in God or that He sent His Son born of a virgin. We appear fools for believing in Resurrection and eternal judgment. For things like that, we must be ready to seem like fools.
But how can you put flat earth into that category? Is it a dogma taught by the magisterium? Is it mentioned in a Creed? It is an idea mentioned by a handful of the Fathers that disappeared after the Patristic period and was ignored for 1300 years. It did not persist throughout the history of the Church. It was revived in recent years by non-Catholics like Eric Dubay.
Flat earth is not part of our Faith. You are doing a horrible thing when you tell people it is.
-
Making yourself ridiculous in the cause of flat earth does not give glory to God.
We are fools in the eyes of many for believing in God or that He sent His Son born of a virgin. We appear fools for believing in Resurrection and eternal judgment. For things like that, we must be ready to seem like fools.
But how can you put flat earth into that category? Is it a dogma taught by the magisterium? Is it mentioned in a Creed? It is an idea mentioned by a handful of the Fathers that disappeared after the Patristic period and was ignored for 1300 years. It did not persist throughout the history of the Church. It was revived in recent years by non-Catholics like Eric Dubay.
Flat earth is not part of our Faith. You are doing a horrible thing when you tell people it is.
Steering people away from the truth is a terrible thing. You're making a serious mistake.
-
Steering people away from the truth is a terrible thing. You're making a serious mistake.
If you think that flat earth is true, then demonstrate that with science. Misrepresenting Church teaching as supporting flat earth has nothing to do with truth.
-
Appearances appearances. You remind us constantly how you submit all your beliefs to human respect. I don't care if I look ridiculous; I will always spread the truth as far as I am able for the glory of God. Thanks be to God!
Well said. To which I would like to add a few thoughts. That seems to be one of the main differences between those who believe in a flat earth, and those who are afraid that the flat earth issue will make tradition look bad. Appearances. As you say, it is the truth that matters. I, too, don't care if I look ridiculous.
The Novus Ordo progressives in the Church think that Tradition is ridiculous. Pope Francis reminds us of this all the time. I'm not accusing the globe-earthers here of being progressive, but if they are embarrassed by the flat earth, well, then, I have to remind them that progressive Catholics are embarrassed by Tradition in general.
Traditionalists will align themselves with controversial subjects. That's how it has been for awhile now. Like Bishop Williamson truthfully saying that there weren't six million Jews killed during WWll. This is a very unpopular stance, and our salvation isn't dependent upon it, but it is useful to know about. We also believe in unpopular views such as dressing modestly, married couples not using birth control, having large families, processions which honor Our Lord and Our Lady - there are quite a few things that go against the worldy view that most Progressives and non-Catholics hold today.
Why should we be afraid of being embarrassed by going against a worldly and materialistic view of the supposed helio globe earth? Because it is quite worldly to believe in a heliocentric globe earth, IMO.
-
Well said. To which I would like to add a few thoughts. That seems to be one of the main differences between those who believe in a flat earth, and those who are afraid that the flat earth issue will make tradition look bad. Appearances. As you say, it is the truth that matters. I, too, don't care if I look ridiculous.
The Novus Ordo progressives in the Church think that Tradition is ridiculous. Pope Francis reminds us of this all the time. I'm not accusing the globe-earthers here of being progressive, but if they are embarrassed by the flat earth, well, then, I have to remind them that progressive Catholics are embarrassed by Tradition in general.
Traditionalists will align themselves with controversial subjects. That's how it has been for awhile now. Like Bishop Williamson truthfully saying that there weren't six million Jews killed during WWll. This is a very unpopular stance, and our salvation isn't dependent upon it, but it is useful to know about. We also believe in unpopular views such as dressing modestly, married couples not using birth control, having large families, processions which honor Our Lord and Our Lady - there are quite a few things that go against the worldy view that most Progressives and non-Catholics hold today.
Why should we be afraid of being embarrassed by going against a worldly and materialistic view of the supposed helio globe earth? Because it is quite worldly to believe in a heliocentric globe earth, IMO.
You are putting modesty, Church teaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality, and traditional devotions on the same level as believing in flat earth. This cheapens the beautiful and important things that are really part of being Catholic. It makes it easier for non-Catholics to dismiss us as kooks.
I am prepared to look ridiculous for something that is worth the cost, things that are genuine Catholic beliefs and practices. But not for a neo-pagan revival of an idea that has been absent from the Church for well over a thousand years.
-
You are putting modesty, Church teaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality, and traditional devotions on the same level as believing in flat earth. This cheapens the beautiful and important things that are really part of being Catholic. It makes it easier for non-Catholics to dismiss us as kooks.
I am prepared to look ridiculous for something that is worth the cost, things that are genuine Catholic beliefs and practices. But not for a neo-pagan revival of an idea that has been absent from the Church for well over a thousand years.
They already dismiss us a kooks, Jayne. Or hadn't you noticed?
-
I am prepared to look ridiculous for something that is worth the cost, things that are genuine Catholic beliefs and practices. But not for a neo-pagan revival of an idea that has been absent from the Church for well over a thousand years.
But I thought you said the Church has ALWAYS believed earth is a globe?
What happened, Mr. Garrison? Why did you revise your estimate down by a thousand years?
-
If you think that flat earth is true, then demonstrate that with science. Misrepresenting Church teaching as supporting flat earth has nothing to do
Science proves earth is flat. Being the case, it's pretty short sighted to think God doesn't know it infallibly, or share the truth with us as scripture attests. She switches her position. She did say 2000 years in another post.
-
She switches her position. She did say 2000 years in another post.
I have never said that the Church always believed in a spherical earth. I have consistently taken the position that there were mixed opinions on the shape of the earth at first, eventually becoming a consensus on spherical. Different authors give different dates for reaching consensus and I have referred to more than one of them, but I have never denied that some of the Fathers believed in flat earth.
I challenge anyone who wants to claim that I have changed my position to provide links and quotes that prove it.
-
You have constantly stated:
1. No educated people ever believed earth is flat.
2. No Fathers of the Church thought earth was flat.
3. No Church teachings (including the Bible) say earth is flat.
-
Furthermore, you have been given quotes from books hundreds of years old that reference your claimed "non-existent" Church flat earth belief and you have sanctimoniously dismissed them all as "lies" "inaccurate" " misunderstood" or "misinterpreted."
-
Smedley is a proven liar and nobody should believe anything he claims about what I have said unless he provides exact quotes with links.
-
Smedley is a proven liar and nobody should believe anything he claims about what I have said unless he provides exact quotes with links.
Mr. Garrison is a proven liar who has twisted Church teaching into something it's not.
LIE #1: Bible does not speak of God's Creation in literal terms (no six days of Creation, sun does not move & earth does, etc.)
LIE #2: God did not intend to teach us about His Creation.
LIE #3: The Church does not intend to teach us about His Creation because it is not profitable to our salvation.
LIE#4: The Bible is incorrect about Creation and science's proper job is to correct God's Infallible Word.
These lies damage people's faith because she has set herself up as a god to proclaim none of this is important, and any discussion of it is a waste of time.
Which makes one wonder why the Fathers spilled so much ink on it if it was such a nothingburger.
Pliny the Elder was more honest than Jaynek when he acknowledged that it is "the great debate."
Indeed a debate that will not go away no matter how much Jaynek wishes or how many lies she tells.
And all this from a condescending woman who herself believes in evolution, heliocentrism, and a 'billyuns years old' universe.
-
Wanna hear something funny? Even Wikipedia diasagrees with Jaynek about PD.
""The Galileo Affair pitted the geocentric model aagainst the claims of Galileo. [..] two Popes addressed whether phenomenological language would compel one to admit an error in Scripture. Both taught it would NOT. Pope Leo wrote in PD #18: [...]
And Pope Pius XII repeated his predecessor's teaching in Divino Afflante Spiritu #3."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
-
Read the section titled "Historical positions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. " at the link.
-
Arrrgh! Only 1 page, and I just can't take it any more!
https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma (https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma)
This is the oldest version of the [Providentissimus Deus] encyclical I have found.
Quite a novel idea--one might even call it modernist--that an encyclical that was promulgated 11/4 centuries ago (1893) by Pope Leo XIII could legitimately exist in multiple versions!
Translated by Roy J Deferrari The quote:
"..the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not intend to teach these things (...) as being of no profit to salvation..."
Now, look at the Vatican's modern-day version:
"...Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (...) things in no way profitable unto salvation.
So while arguing the merits of a single sentence in each of 2 translations, you actually displayed the chutzpah to remove words (i.e., with ellipsis notation, altho' I added the red color herein) from the middle of the compound phrases that were so important that you presented them in C.I.'s extra-bold type!?
This subtle deceptive change of adding words (the version on the Vatican website) imparts a different meaning to the text.
Why should a reader trust your comparison, when you've overtly removed words that might be crucial to the meaning of each sentence?
Oh, it matters, because one quote comes from an encyclical, and the other is from St. Augustine. The encyclical takes precedence.
Your assertion about "precedence" does not officially apply when both docuмents are in a vernacular language, e.g., English.
All the more reason for people to take care to go to antiquity for reliable sources.
Antiquity!? Whoa! You have access to manuscripts in the Vatican Archives!? The movable-type printing press wasn't invented until ca. 1450, and was not widely in use until after ca. 1500. How much modern English do you expect to find back in whatever "antiquity" it is that you recommend?
-
Quote from: Jaynek on February 11, 2018, 09:47:30 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/oldest-version-of-providentissimus-deus-found-with-clearer-translation/msg594380/#msg594380)
You are putting modesty, Church teaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality, and traditional devotions on the same level as believing in flat earth. This cheapens the beautiful and important things that are really part of being Catholic. It makes it easier for non-Catholics to dismiss us as kooks.
I am prepared to look ridiculous for something that is worth the cost, things that are genuine Catholic beliefs and practices. But not for a neo-pagan revival of an idea that has been absent from the Church for well over a thousand years.
They already dismiss us a kooks, Jayne. Or hadn't you noticed?
.
Meg says Trads are all ready dismissed as kooks, so why not prove them right?
.
Tell non-Catholics that "flat" earth is traditional Catholicism (IOW tell a lie) and confirm their judgment that Trads are kooks!
.
Brilliant .............. NOT!