CathInfo.com

Is that infallible Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost?

What's the gaslight for?  Obviously not.  Neither are the sources those on the other side of this issue.

Now, what is very important in that passage, and does reflect the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers ... "Scripture ... gives no false information." -- something that the Modernist heretics deny.  When Galileo was condemned as a heretic, it was on the ground that he attributed error to Sacred Scripture.  This debunks all the Modernists who claim that Sacred Scripture is not inerrant about scientific and historical matters because it didn't "intend" to teach about such things, but only about spiritual things.  I've heard that even from a fair number of Trad priests, and we all know that the Modernists got their start by attacking Sacred Scripture.

It also demonstrates that various Church Fathers, even if they concede that the earth might be spherical, that doesn't mean they're referring to the NASA ball model.  I recall one glober here who posted some passages from St. Hildegard of Bingen describing the world as spherical, and at the end of the exact passage he posted, which he evidently didn't bother to read, and stopped reading as soon as the first part confirmed his bias, where she said that the bottom part of the spherical earth was ... the Deep and Sheol, and not the inhabited sphere that NASA claims it to be.  That the Church Fathers might believe there were people on the bottom of a sphere hanging upside down is absurd given that the notion of gravity had not been invented.

If Church Fathers do speak of a spherical world or earth, they undoubtedly have this in mind as the sphere, not NASA's ball.  I used to concede that the Fathers believed in a globe earth, but then when I read Sungenis' book against Flat Earth, and saw the quotations from said Fathers, it became obvious to me that they were not describing the NASA ball but theri "sphere" included the firmament ... which of course no modern globe model bothers to even try explaining except for to pretend that the firmament is "space".  Even Dr. Sungenis said that at first, but then realized it was nonsense, given how Sacred Scripture described the firmament (and I give him much credit for believing in the inerrancy of even science in Sacred Scripture ... where he issued a rebuttal of Father Paul Robinson) ... he went to the Planck fabric, but then when that too was inadequate, he developed the cosmic ice ball theory, though they summarily pulled the plug on that series at Kolbe and they never did finish it, much to my disappointment.

This here is the Patristic "sphere".  Now, St. Augustine mentioned a debate, where some believed that the earth was a half sphere, and this was based on their notion that the heavier elements would settle / sink to the bottom, and he felt that was tenable because ... bottom center is still center.  That statement implies that it was required to hold that earth is at the center of the universe.  St. Ambrose, in a passage cited by Dr. Sungenis, tried to explain how the solid earth might be suspended in the middle of waters ... and not sink to the bottom, and he speculated about the spinning action of the waters, as well as saying it could be just miraculously suspended by God in the middle, and he spoke of the water hitting the sphere ... which is absurd if he held the NASA ball theory, since the atmosphere / heaven would be between the waters and the earth (if defined as surace of the earth).  Yet another Father describe the earth as a sphere ... but with a slice through the middle that forms a circle.  Hmmm.  So what is this "slice" in NASA cosmology?  This is clearly a description of the land or earth that we walk on cutting through the spherical world to form the flat circle of the earth we walk on.