I honestly don't know how many times we have to go through this. In the FE cosmology, the earth (system), "mundus", continues to be a sphere, as the firmament enclosing the earth is spherical, and that makes perfect sense that the sphere of the earth would be convulsed by whatever's happening, including messing with the regular motion of the stars. So what effect on the "NASA ball" sphere (where we walk on a ball, vs. the entire world system being spherical) would cause the starts to lose their motion? ... oh, wait, something that messes with the movement of the firmament in which said stars actually reside.
You see words "globe, ball, sphere" and like Pavlov's dogs trained by NASA and the modern scientific establishment you immediately conclude "NASA ball".
Sorry Ladislauis, that argument doesn't work this time. Our Lady's prophesy was about the Earth's globe or sphere reads very specific to me. Our Lady was referring to the problems the EARTH would undergo, not the universe. The idea that Our Lady meant a flat Earth in a global universe will not convince anybody interested in this debate.I am a french speaker and the text is:
Perhaps someone can tell us the French word used by Our Lady and the seers for globe or sphere.
Our Lady said: 'The seasons will be altered, the EARTH will produce nothing but bad fruit, the stars will lose their regular motion, the moon will only reflect a faint reddish glow. Water and fire will give the EARTH's globe (or sphere), convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc....'
The earth IS A GLOBE. With flat land.From the center of the flat earth model, how high is the atmosphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/O0Nlodc.png)
From the center of the flat earth model, how high is the atmosphere?Don't know, don't care. The lack of a working FE model doesn't nullify the theory. NASA's globe has no working model either; it's been utterly debunked.
Sorry Ladislauis, that argument doesn't work this time. Our Lady's prophesy was about the Earth's globe or sphere reads very specific to me.
On the Galileo question I suggest Hertz' article. She said that the condemnation of Galileo was signed by seven judges, but not by the pope, and therefore was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The same, coincidentally, can be said of the Fr. Feeney situation.
On the Galileo question I suggest Hertz' article. She said that the condemnation of Galileo was signed by seven judges, but not by the pope, and therefore was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The same, coincidentally, can be said of the Fr. Feeney situation.
I think you truly have been retarded by your NASA worship. Seriously? Even in English we refer to the entire realm we live in as "earth", and not just the dry land that we stand on. On top of that in the expression globe OF the eath, what does the possessive mean? Does she say that the earth/land IS a globe? No, but that it HAS a globe or that the globe belongs to the earth. As typical with the NASA-ball types you just read into it what you want to see there.
So you're telling me that you can't refer to what Our Lord in this "Salvator Mundi" is holding as the "globe of the earth"? that the globe surroundting the earth and attached to the earth and pertaining to the earth cannot be called the "globe OF the earth"?
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/christ-as-salvator-mundi-flemish-school.jpg)
On top of that, when dealing with cosmology, the "earth" is contrasted with the "heaven", as in the expression "heaven and earth", es cieux et la terre, where the contrast is between the heavens and the earth, as in the Creed where we believe that God created the heaven and the earth? Is the "earth" here limited to just the dirt that we walk on or the earth meaning the system that includes everything that lives on it, i.e. as in the broader sense of God having created "the visible and the invisible"?
On the Galileo question I suggest Hertz' article. She said that the condemnation of Galileo was signed by seven judges, but not by the pope, and therefore was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The same, coincidentally, can be said of the Fr. Feeney situation.
Was the 1616 condemnation of heliocentrism (a fixed-sun around which the Earth moves) an infallible condemnation making geocentrism (a fixed-Earth around which the sun and stars revolve). This is such an important and interesting question I will open a separate discussion on this.
Why is it that anyone who even questions the assertion that the Earth is flat, gets insulted and gets a thumbs down? In fact my belief in a global or spherical Earth is because it has been proven by the science not any 'NASA worship.'
If you believe that people can't have invincible ignorance, then this topic should prove otherwise. Both sides hold strong to what they believe.Ignorance of an aspect of the material world is not the same as ignorance of the true God.
Yes, it's somewhat disputed, and you make a strong case for this ... though I've seen others claiming the opposite, including the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article on the matter. Unfortunately, given that it's disputed among Catholics, I don't think someone can make that case of anyone denying it to be guilty of formal heresy ... and the Church would have to weigh in on the matter (when the Church hierarchy has been restored).
That's where sedevacantism from the perspective of "personal heresy" of the papal claimants gets into hot water. Let's say in this case I contend that you're a heretic of you adhere to heliocentrism. But some Catholic I say that to responds, "No, I'm not. That wasn't an infallible teaching." Can I then accuse the latter of being a formal heretic? Formal heresy entails rejecting something despite the Church having authoritatively taught it as dogma, but if you have some halfway reasonable argument that the Church has NOT defined it, that on the surface implies that you would not reject it if you believed the Church taught it. It can get slippery there, and that's why I always focus on the Church's indefectibility rather than personal heresy, since the latter can be real slippery.