CathInfo.com

They both come from the same root word.  Phenomenological language is a figure of speech in which one describes phenomena by their appearance rather than real nature.

According to Wikipedia:
Phenomenology may refer to:
·        Empirical research, when used to describe measurement methods in some sciences
·        An empirical relationship or phenomenological model
·        Phenomenology (architecture), based on the experience of building materials and their sensory properties
·        Phenomenology (archaeology), based upon understanding cultural landscapes from a sensory perspective
·        Phenomenology (particle physics), a branch of particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy experiments
·        Phenomenology (philosophy), a philosophical method and school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938 )
·        Phenomenology (psychology), subjective experiences or their study
 

The philosophical approach founded by Husserl is problematic for Catholics.  This does not mean that every possible use of the word is something bad.

Like how the root word of "Modernism" may not be all bad? Modernists, of course, do not believe that the term 'Modernism' is bad at all. 

"He sitteth above the compass (literal) of earth,  and the people are spread out like locusts (phenomenological) beneath."

To apply this to a specific passage of Scripture, let’s look at this one from the first chapter of Genesis:

[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

The Church does not expect us to take this literally, since it is contrary to reason.  Therefore, we may interpret it as speaking of how things appeared to people at the time it was written.  To them, it appeared as if there were a hard, clear dome above the earth which had water on the other side, giving the sky the same colour as water in lakes and rivers. This water could come to the earth as rain.  The hard dome is what held the lights in the sky in their places: the sun, the moon, and the stars.

bzzzt.  This crosses over from phenomenological / metaphorical language into blatant error.

Because it looked to "them" (who's "them" ... since the Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture?) to be hard, they "mistakenly" described it as such.  Because the idiots saw a blue sky, they mistakenly concluded that there was water up there.  This is not phenomenological language at all ... but blatant error.  Phenomenological language might include things like "and then the sun set".

This is nothing but modernist crap.

Here's my take on firmament.  If there's no such thing as a solid firmament, then it's because the original Hebrew word actually means "expanse" ... the Latin word for which is spatium ... from which we get our word space.  So the original Hebrew did not imply solidity ... even though the Latin translation did ... by way of interpretation.

This passage above makes the people who wrote Scripture into a bunch of ignoramuses whose ignorance somehow broke through the authorship of Scripture by the Holy Spirit to inject their errors into it.