Regardless of that interpretation of St. Thomas, St. Augustine did relate the debate about the school who thought earth (w/ firmament) was hemispherical, since the heavy parts settle at the bottom of the water (i.e. dirt is heavier or more dense than water).  If that's their thinking one would certainly think the bottom of it was flat (well, that's why they say it's a hemisphere).

But, again they didn't have a concept of gravity until the Mason Newton invented it to explain cosmology, so they didn't have a notion of how someone could adhere to the bottom of a ball, for they did have absolute concept of up and down, not relative to the earth "core".

St. Ambrose, in that one passage, addresses the objection about how the world (which he called a sphere) could be suspended in the midst of the waters.  His answer was that the waters spun around the spherical earth (the firmament snow globe) and this swirling motion kept the earth suspended, vs. settling to the bottom.  That was the state of the debate back then, where NASA's ball floating in space occurred to absolutely no one.  Of course, if the waters swirling around the "sphere" kept the entire thing suspended, he's obviously talking about the firmament enclosure, and not the ball surface as NASA would have it, because at that point the earth would be inundated by said waters.

So if St. Ambrose had to construct an argument to explain how the earth sphere didn't sink like a rock to the bottom of the universe, then he clearly also would find absurd the idea that something could stick to the "bottom" of a ball (since, again, for him, up and down were absolutes).

So, if you look into the question of gravity, you find this ...

Before the understanding of gravity, people, particularly ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, believed that objects fell to the ground because they were naturally seeking their "proper place," which for earthly objects meant the center of the Earth, essentially thinking that the Earth had an inherent pull on things due to its nature as the center of the universe, not a specific force like gravity as we now understand it; this was based on the idea of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) and their natural tendency to move towards their respective places.

So this construct was largely a philosophical one, perhaps with some implicit idea of being congealed by something like static electricity, but more likely due to the Intelligent Designer putting things where they should be.  Antipodal people were widely rejected even by the sphere people, as the notion of people sticking to the bottom of the earth was absurd.  That's why you had the hemisphere earth people, and St. Augustine considered their position tenable, while St. Ambrose had to come up with an explanation (spinning water) for how the earth system does not sink to the bottom of the universe but stays suspended in the middle of the waters.

There was another philosophical driver, namely that the "perfect shape" in nature is a sphere.

But they really had not what-would-be-called-today scientific explanation for it.

Regardless of that interpretation of St. Thomas, ...

You must realize that my interpretation is correct.  You know enough about reading texts not to have been fooled.  But apparently you would rather change the subject than admit that I am right and your flat earth buddies are wrong.  You are always going on about others lacking intellectual honesty, but this is tribalism not honesty.

Tell the truth about that passage.

You must realize that my interpretation is correct.

No.  I haven't had a chance to read the FULL context and can't make a judgement based on what was quoted.  And I'm not even interested in spending all the time pursuing the matter.  If he though the earth was a ball, then I disagree and think he's wrong.  Move along now.  Not worth the time, honestly.  Patristics may be worth more time due to their significance in interpreting Scripture, but St. Thomas following Aristotle ... it's not really a big deal what he thought, and that was the point of my comment, basically, I don't really care either way.  It's like the folks in the BoD debate who incessantly and ad nauseam cite St. Thomas on Baptism of Desire.  OK, so?  I don't need to read this for the 100th time.  I concede that it's what he taught.  Your point being ...?  I don't know who's right and who's wrong based on the little I saw (or whom I BELIEVE to be right and whom wrong), but the point of my comment is ... "If you ARE right, it really doesn't mean that much." ... other than the implication that he held that globe earth doesn't inherently contradict Scripture.  OK?  But he's not a Church Father, and even if the Church Fathers were divided (which I used to concede but I'm not so sure about anymore, having read their quotations in Dr. Sungenis' book), we will then debate the question here as an open one.

I've never asserted that FE is dogma and ball is heresy.  My assertions have to do with the firmament being irreconcilable with Sacred Scripture as universally understood by the Fathers, and I ALMOST found Dr. Sungenis' latest try at interpreting it to be entirely tenable, except that I had to disagree with his argument that it changed on the 4th day of creation.

So, then, if he were talking about a little circle/ball within a larger one, would it be centered inside the ball?  If so, how and by what force?

So, one Church Father cited by Dr. Sungenis described a plane intersecting a sphere, with the intersection resulting in a circle.  What does that mean on a ball earth?  Not much that I can tell.

But then this looks awfully a lot like the snowglobe model of the world ... [will post later after converting image to format CI likes].  Have to step away.

But you call me a heretic often enough when I defend GE

If your GE has no firmament or one that doesn't line up with the unanimous opinion of the Church fathers, then yes, you're a heretic.

Sounds a lot like the order of moisture in the sky to me.

Firmament means strong and firm.

"The firmament, that is to say, the sky, was thus established in the midst of the waters, to separate the waters above the firmament from the waters. The divine power establishes this firmament in the midst of the waters which were below it, in it, above it and around it. It was of a concave form, and sufficiently defenseless defensible by its nature against the invasion of internal or external waters, it was like a well-fortified house, which gives security to its inhabitants."

The word 'defenseless' makes no sense in the context of this quote.  It must be an error of translation.  The entire purpose of the firmament is to separate waters, as explained in the first sentence.  So the 3rd sentence makes no sense unless the word be 'defensible', (or something similar) to carry on the meaning of protecting against "the invasion of internal or external waters".

If your GE has no firmament or one that doesn't line up with the unanimous opinion of the Church fathers, then yes, you're a heretic.
Firmament means strong and firm.
The word 'defenseless' makes no sense in the context of this quote.  It must be an error of translation.  The entire purpose of the firmament is to separate waters, as explained in the first sentence.  So the 3rd sentence makes no sense unless the word be 'defensible', (or something similar) to carry on the meaning of protecting against "the invasion of internal or external waters".

See my explanation that I just posted which is found in the text itself.  

More logical fallacies. 

1.  You’re assuming that because St Thomas accepted the Aristotle’s SOLAR SYSTEM, that St Thomas accepted every single detail of the EARTH.  Not logical.

2.  You’re assuming that an acceptance of Ptolemy’s SOLAR SYSTEM means an acceptance of every detail about EARTH.  Not logical. 

3.  You’re assuming that a stamp of approval of “this isn’t contrary to the Faith” means that St Thomas/Church accepted every detail.  Not logical.  (Much like the Imprimatur of a book doesn’t guarantee it’s 100% correct).

4.  St Thomas isn’t infallible. 

5.  Just because the Church translates, disseminates copies into the schooling system and talks about a book for centuries, doesn’t mean the book is 100% approved.  Every catholic university’s library contains many heretical and non-catholic books, for use in study. 

Even Protestant colleges have the docuмents of St Thomas and of Trent.  Studying a book doesn’t mean you agree with it.

One could go on and on.  Most of your arguments are “deductions” based on poor logic and assumptions.  There’s no actual proof.

point 4 was useless you already proved your point

some people take any chance they can to take jabs at St Thomas

St Thomas wasnt a globe earther!


[color=rgb(var(--color_19))](in regard to claiming the earth is round) St. Thomas does no such thing. In a question on habits (I-II, Q54, art 2), he makes reference to Aristotle having "proven" that the Earth was round. His wording can make it seem like he agrees especially if you come at it presupposing the Earth to be round, but he does not state clearly is own opinion on the matter. He was simply using it to make another general point.[/color]

[color=rgb(var(--color_19))]We should note that Thomistic philosophy is profoundly realistic and accepts what we view with our senses. A good Thomist accepts what he sees, even if this reality hurts.[/color]