Even though we often see St. Augustine claimed here as a believer in flat earth (based on a misunderstanding of his comments on antipodes) in fact he thought the earth was a sphere. He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles.Everyone on Cathinfo, including you, knows the earth is not a sphere.
From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":
cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.
"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."
If anyone would like to see it in context here is a pdf for the entire work. In this work the passage (which is a bit different translation from mine "the mass of this watery globe") occurs near the top of page 179.
http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf (http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf)
I hope that those who have been insisting on literalistic interpretations of Scripture will read the entire thing and understand how far their ideas on interpretation are from the teaching of St. Augustine.
Everyone on Cathinfo, including you, knows the earth is not a sphere.
Since you did not respond to the point of the post, I'll try one that may be easier for you to understand:You are missing the ice wall in your graphic.
(https://pics.me.me/if-the-earth-was-flat-cats-would-have-pushed-everything-21424991.png)
Since you did not respond to the point of the post, I'll try one that may be easier for you to understand:You are missing the dome in your graphic.
(https://pics.me.me/if-the-earth-was-flat-cats-would-have-pushed-everything-21424991.png)
Even though we often see St. Augustine claimed here as a believer in flat earth (based on a misunderstanding of his comments on antipodes) in fact he thought the earth was a sphere. He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles.You sure didn't read far because he speaks of the oceans as flat like fields.
From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":
cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.
"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."
If anyone would like to see it in context here is a pdf for the entire work. In this work the passage (which is a bit different translation from mine "the mass of this watery globe") occurs near the top of page 179.
http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf (http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf)
I hope that those who have been insisting on literalistic interpretations of Scripture will read the entire thing and understand how far their ideas on interpretation are from the teaching of St. Augustine.
You sure didn't read far because he speaks of the oceans as flat like fields.He clearly and explicitly said that the earth is a globe. There is no other way to understand aquosa et globosa moles.
He clearly and explicitly said that the earth is a globe. There is no other way to understand aquosa et globosa moles.(https://i.imgur.com/Ck3UxCP.jpg)
People who believe the earth is a sphere often talk about oceans being flat and fields being flat. It means these things appear flat to the naked eye. Using such expressions does not show that a person believes the earth is flat. It is certainly not evidence of belief in flat earth when someone has just described the earth as a watery spherical mass.
You claim to be basing your belief on the teachings of the Fathers but it is clear that you are not. You twist the words of the Fathers to make them say what you want.
Even though we often see St. Augustine claimed here as a believer in flat earth (based on a misunderstanding of his comments on antipodes) in fact he thought the earth was a sphere. He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles.You stepped in it again. Augustine is debunking the globe. He poses it this way:
From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":
cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.
"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."
If anyone would like to see it in context here is a pdf for the entire work. In this work the passage (which is a bit different translation from mine "the mass of this watery globe") occurs near the top of page 179.
http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf (http://www.scottmacdonald.net/genesis/Texts_files/Augustine%20Literal%20Meaning%20of%20Genesis%20bks%201-2.pdf)
I hope that those who have been insisting on literalistic interpretations of Scripture will read the entire thing and understand how far their ideas on interpretation are from the teaching of St. Augustine.
You stepped in it again. Augustine is debunking the globe. He poses it this way:It does not mean anything like what you are saying. In this passage, he is answering the question "How did evening and morning follow each other in the first three days?" This needs an explanation because the sun was not created until the fourth day and yet light was separated from darkness and there were days starting from the first day.
25. "But if that primordial light had been poured round the mass of the earth on all sides to cover it all, whether it was stationary (geocentric globe) or circling round (heliocentric globe), there would have been no part in which it could let night into follow it, because it would not itself have withdrawn from anywhere to make room for it."
If you'd bother to read, you'd see he's taken a swipe at both notions of globe, moving and stationary. Then he continues:
"Or, was it just made on the one side of the earth, so that as it circled round it would allow night from the side to circle round too in its wake? Since water, you see, was still covering the whole earth, there was nothing to stop the mass of this watery globe from causing day on one side from the presence of light, and night on the other from the absence of light, which would follow round to the first side at the time of evening, while the light sank down to the other side."
St. Augustine finishes up debunking the ridiculous globe, then in a statement two paragraphs later he says: "Who would say such a thing, when he can see the fields of the sea, spread out level on all sides..."
Thanks for posting this, you saved me the time and corrected yourself all in one fell swoop.
This passage from St. Augustine is a clear, unambiguous reference to his belief in a spherical earth. It requires no special knowledge of the original language or the historical context. All that one needs to do is read a couple of paragraphs of immediate context and it ought to unmistakable what he is talking about.
"Who would ever say such a thing, when you can see the fields of the sea, spread out level on all sides." -St. Augustine
And yet happenby managed to see it as a "debunking" of globe earth. She is apparently so blinded by her attachment to her opinion that she is not even capable of understanding what she reads. And unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. She has been shown other quotes from Fathers in which they teach or show their belief in globe earth and she consistently falls back on denying that they say what they say. She dismisses the correct understanding as "spin" and goes on as if she had never seen it.
You would think you'd be tired of being proven wrong. A notable authority on the saint, says in his books about St. Augustine, that the saint was a flat earther. Small bio: "Recognized internationally as an authority on Augustine of Hippo, Mr. Ferrari published over 35 works on the 5th-century bishop-philosopher and presented a number of academic papers on him at conferences and conventions. In 1982 he was invited to deliver the annual Saint Augustine Lecture at Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania. A substantial work, Concordantia in libros XIII confessionum S. Aurelii Augustini, the first published concordance to the Skutella text, was published jointly with Rodney H. Cooper, Peter M. Ruddock, and J. Robert Smith in 1991. Ferrari retired from university teaching in 1995. At spring convocation 1998, he will be named first professor emeritus of St. Thomas University.
She frequently claims that she is basing her view on the Fathers and "globalists" have no support from Catholic sources. She and others here constantly pretend that they have never been shown quotes from the Fathers demonstrating spherical earth. Their claims are meaningless. Their view, rather than being based on the Fathers, is based on a refusal or inability to understand what they read.
I've been on this for 10 years and have yet to find Catholic Father sources for the globe. I've requested from you Fatherly sources for your globe, which you cannot produce, because you have no traditional Catholic sources for the globe. If I'm mistaken and you somehow have them now, please share them. I have shared flat earth teachings from Scripture, from St. John Chrysostom, Methodius, Cosmas, St. Jerome, Severian, St. Basil, Enoch, Lactanctius, Origen, etc.
The truth, which they will never admit, is that there were mixed opinions among the Fathers regarding the shape of the earth. There was nothing approaching a consensus on the topic. If one goes through the list of flatist proof quotes one sees that a large proportion do not even show support for flat earth and just one actually suggests that Christians are obliged to believe it. St. John Damascene accurately summarized the views of the Fathers when he said that some said it was flat and some said it was a globe, but what is important is to know that God is is the creator.
There's no consensus on who believed a particular shape of the earth and I've said that time and again. I've also repeated that, of the Fathers who taught anything on the shape of the earth, 100% taught flat earth, and they based their teachings in Scripture. That is a consensus on the actual teachings on the shape of the earth. Unless of course, you manage to drum up one I haven't yet come across where a Father uses Scripture to prove earth is a ball. Still waiting...
Those of us who believe the earth is a sphere have just as much a right to claim support from the Fathers. Unlike the flatists, whose Catholic support ends with the patristic period, we hold the belief which persisted throughout history as the consensus among Catholics, including Doctors and Saints. While there is no magisterial teaching on the shape of the earth, there is a long strong tradition of Catholics believing in spherical earth.
On what do you base this 'right' to claim support from the Fathers? They haven't given you, or your globe, any support. This isn't an equal rights thing. You have a right to the Fathers, but they have not provided you a single teaching for the globe, so you don't have a right to claim support from the Fathers.
No one is talking magisterial teaching.
As far as most Catholic believing in spherical earth throughout the centuries, please provide the specifics that prove this.
As for the Saints, some thought earth a sphere, but exactly none have brought forth a teaching on it. You believe that some describe a globe in their visions. This is far from proven, but even if they did, others, like Anne Catherine Emmerich say its flat. No consensus. Private revelation.
There is no historical basis for claims that spherical earth was forced on Catholics by Freemasons or NASA. It is a legitimate part of our heritage as Catholics that goes back to the Fathers
Oh, there is. And I have plenty of it. The historical basis for the pagan globe theory being a thorn in the Catholic side going way back, and can be said it is a long time part of our heritage as an unwanted controversy. The sphere is always found emanating from the dark corners of science where you find these types: Cabalists (Albert Pike), sorcerers (Johannes Kepler), diviners (N Copernicus), atheists (Einstein), Freemasons (NASA), ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (Newton), political mass murderers (Karl Marx),
All these men were sphere earth promoters in a really big way. In fact, Karl Marx, an avid spherical earther, actually thanked Copernicus for giving him a scientific premise for Communism/Marxism.
A notable authority on the saint, says in his books about St. Augustine, that the saint was a flat earther.She gives no actual quote from this notable authority. Given her demonstrated lack of reading ability, I see no reason to accept an unsupported claim from her.
Leo Ferrari was a founding member and head of the satirical Flat Earth Society of Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society_of_Canada), later renamed the Flat Earth Society (FES).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-fonds-3-5)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-dvd-notes-9)
In Ferrari's writings in support of the FES and the Flat Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth), he attributed everything from gender to racial inequality on the globularist and the Spherical Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) model.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-6) Ferrari even claimed to have nearly fallen off "the Edge" of the Earth at Brimstone Head on Fogo Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogo_Island,_Newfoundland_and_Labrador).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-7)
Ferrari was a key figure in the 1990 flat earth "docuмentary", In Search of the Edge.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-dvd-8) In the accompanying study guide, Ferrari is outed as a "globularist," someone who believes the earth is spherical.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-dvd-notes-9) The intent of the film was to promote critical thinking about media by "[attempting] to prove in convincing fashion, something everyone knew to be false." [8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-dvd-notes-9)
You are missing the dome in your graphic.
Happenby,Thanks, Meg. Notice she claims again that she provided proofs from the Fathers that earth is a globe, which I have yet to see. She refuses to post anything because she doesn't have anything, then deflects the request by saying she already posted several. She's definitely digging herself a ditch by continuing to say she did post them and by not posting them now (in case we missed them). Have you seen a single proof from Jaynek of a Father of the Church teaching, based on Scripture, to show earth is a globe?
Since Jayne didn't really respond to the good points you made in post #14 on this first page of this thread, I'll reiterate some of it here, so as to be a reminder of what you wrote. (I can't quote directly from what you wrote due to the formatting of your response to Jayne).
When Jayne said that those who believe in a sphere have a right to claim support from the Fathers, you gave a good reply thus:
"On what do you base this 'right' to claim support from the Fathers? They haven't given you, or your globe, any support. This isn't an equal rights thing. You have a right to the Fathers, but they have not provided you a single teaching for the globe, so you don't have a right to claim support from the Fathers.
No one is talking about magisterial teaching.
As for most Catholics believing in a spherical earth, please provide specifics that prove this.
As for the saints, some thought the earth a sphere, but exactly none have brought forth teaching from it."
Thanks, Meg. Notice she claims again that she provided proofs from the Fathers that earth is a globe, which I have yet to see. She refuses to post anything because she doesn't have anything, then deflects the request by saying she already posted several. She's definitely digging herself a ditch by continuing to say she did post them and by not posting them now (in case we missed them). Have you seen a single proof from Jaynek of a Father of the Church teaching, based on Scripture, to show earth is a globe?
Happenby,As any objective person can tell, happenby did not make any good points. And they certainly do not need to be reiterated since these same false claims have already been made countless times on this forum.
Since Jayne didn't really respond to the good points you made in post #14 on this first page of this thread, I'll reiterate some of it here, so as to be a reminder of what you wrote.
No, I haven't seen any proof from Jayne that a Father of the Church has taught that the earth is a globe, based on scripture.If you could understand the passage from St. Augustine which is the subject of this thread, you would have seen that very thing. You don't see the proofs because you are blind, not because they have not been shown to you.
If you could understand the passage from St. Augustine which is the subject of this thread, you would have seen that very thing. You don't see the proofs because you are blind, not because they have not been shown to you.
I could have seen that very thing? We were asking about Church Fathers who taught a globe earth based on SCRIPTURE. I can't find where St. Augustine references Scripture for "Aquosa et globose moles." Maybe I missed it.Good example of moving the goalposts . At first they were saying to show that there were Fathers who BELIEVED in globe earth . When shown that there were, they moved to asking for Fathers that TAUGHT globe earth. When shown this, they ask for Fathers who taught globe based on SCRIPTURE . (This actually was based on Scripture but she couldn't tell ) .
Please be specific and clear about what part of Scripture St. Augustine himself attributes to "Aquosa et globosa moles."
Good example of moving the goalposts . At first they were saying to show that there were Fathers who BELIEVED in globe earth . When shown that there were, they moved to asking for Fathers that TAUGHT globe earth. When shown this, they ask for Fathers who taught globe based on SCRIPTURE . (This actually was based on Scripture but she couldn't tell ) .
There is always some excuse to dismiss the evidence and pretend that none has ever been produced. I wonder if they really think they are fooling anyone.
Good example of moving the goalposts . At first they were saying to show that there were Fathers who BELIEVED in globe earth . When shown that there were, they moved to asking for Fathers that TAUGHT globe earth. When shown this, they ask for Fathers who taught globe based on SCRIPTURE . (This actually was based on Scripture but she couldn't tell ) .
There is always some excuse to dismiss the evidence and pretend that none has ever been produced. I wonder if they really think they are fooling anyone.
You stepped in it again. Augustine is debunking the globe. He poses it this way:
25. "But if that primordial light had been poured round the mass of the earth on all sides to cover it all, whether it was stationary (geocentric globe) or circling round (heliocentric globe), there would have been no part in which it could let night into follow it, because it would not itself have withdrawn from anywhere to make room for it."
If you'd bother to read, you'd see he's taken a swipe at both notions of globe, moving and stationary. Then he continues:
"Or, was it just made on the one side of the earth, so that as it circled round it would allow night from the side to circle round too in its wake? Since water, you see, was still covering the whole earth, there was nothing to stop the mass of this watery globe from causing day on one side from the presence of light, and night on the other from the absence of light, which would follow round to the first side at the time of evening, while the light sank down to the other side."
St. Augustine finishes up debunking the ridiculous globe, then in a statement two paragraphs later he says: "Who would say such a thing, when he can see the fields of the sea, spread out level on all sides..."
Thanks for posting this, you saved me the time and corrected yourself all in one fell swoop.
Oh if only it were possible to arrive at truths about the physical world based on reason and observation, all this worrying about which translation is more correct or what exactly a word means could be avoided... Oh wait! You can! Silly me, I forgot for a moment.Indeed, one only needs their eyes to see the earth is flat : no curvature seen anywhere.
Unfortunately, the handful of flat-earthers who contribute here will agree with each other no matter what nonsense they come up with. I suppose their loyalty is commendable. It's too bad it is not put in service of something true and good. Instead they help each other to maintain a fantasy world.I was only writing about flat earth when I posted that, but it turns out to be even more broadly true than I realized.
Good example of moving the goalposts . At first they were saying to show that there were Fathers who BELIEVED in globe earth . When shown that there were, they moved to asking for Fathers that TAUGHT globe earth. When shown this, they ask for Fathers who taught globe based on SCRIPTURE . (This actually was based on Scripture but she couldn't tell ) ..
There is always some excuse to dismiss the evidence and pretend that none has ever been produced. I wonder if they really think they are fooling anyone.
..[Retarded post].
I was only writing about flat earth when I posted that, but it turns out to be even more broadly true than I realized..
Over the the past couple of days, one of the forum's prominent flat-earthers, Truth is Eternal, was posting in support of the heresy of judaizing. Thankfully, Matthew removed the heretical posts and banned him.
Astonishingly, Meg jumped in to defend her flat earth buddy and his erroneous views, even when he was obviously (to everyone else on the forum) taking a heretical position. She was unmoved by quotes from Scripture, the Fathers, and magisterial teaching. She did not concede the Catholic position until another flat-earther told her to. (At least one of them has a basic grasp of Catholicism.)
Given that flat-earthers are constantly going to heretical sites to find support for their odd position, it is not surprising that TiE ended up embracing a heresy. If people immerse themselves in Protestant errors like sola scriptura, it is only natural that it erodes their sensus catholicus.
Indeed, one only needs their eyes to see the earth is flat : no curvature seen anywhere..
.I did. Besides being convoluted at times, they don't prove earth a globe. To be clear, every last one is an utter failure.
Take your eyes and try the experiments I described many times all ready.
.
Or, don't, and continue in you obstreperous nescience.
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 10:53:59 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611128/#msg611128).Quote.
Take your eyes and try the experiments I described many times all ready.
.
Or, don't, and continue in your obstreperous nescience.
I did. Besides being convoluted at times, they don't prove earth a globe. To be clear, every last one is an utter failure.
You globetards wouldn't know sensus catholicus if it punched you in the face..
That's really rich coming from the Novus Ordo Mass-going, heliocentric, evolution-spouting globetards.
.
Quote from: Jaynek on May 19, 2018, 11:06:15 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg610142/#msg610142)QuoteUnfortunately, the handful of flat-earthers who contribute here will agree with each other no matter what nonsense they come up with. I suppose their loyalty is commendable. It's too bad it is not put in service of something true and good. Instead they help each other to maintain a fantasy world.
.
I was only writing about flat earth when I posted that, but it turns out to be even more broadly true than I realized.
Over the the past couple of days, one of the forum's prominent flat-earthers, Truth is Eternal, was posting in support of the heresy of judaizing. Thankfully, Matthew removed the heretical posts and banned him.
Astonishingly, Meg jumped in to defend her flat earth buddy and his erroneous views, even when he was obviously (to everyone else on the forum) taking a heretical position. She was unmoved by quotes from Scripture, the Fathers, and magisterial teaching. She did not concede the Catholic position until another flat-earther told her to. (At least one of them has a basic grasp of Catholicism.)
Given that flat-earthers are constantly going to heretical sites to find support for their odd position, it is not surprising that TiE ended up embracing a heresy. If people immerse themselves in Protestant errors like sola scriptura, it is only natural that it erodes their sensus catholicus.
.
Quote from: aryzia on Today at 11:50:21 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611135/#msg611135)QuoteQuote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 10:53:59 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611128/#msg611128).Quote.
Take your eyes and try the experiments I described many times all ready.
.
Or, don't, and continue in your obstreperous nescience.
I did. Besides being convoluted at times, they don't prove earth a globe. To be clear, every last one is an utter failure.
You did? When?
Provide links to your description of your experiments.
.
Where is the link to when you measured the angle between the quarter moon and the sun?
Where is the link to when you projected the line of sight from a full moon at midnight toward the sun's position?
Where is the link to when you charted the path of the sun setting during the equinox along an east-west landmark?
Where is the link to when you tested the angle above the horizon to Polaris at different latitudes?
Where is the link to when you carried a theodolite to a mountain top to sight the elevation level above the horizon?
.
Or, are you actually providing yet more corroboration with your already-established obstreperous nescience?
.
..
Are you a Protestant?
.I don't know if he is a Protestant, but he does claim that "globetards" attend the Novus Ordo with no evidence. I can't remember the last time I went to a NO. It was years ago.
And Smedley Butler is outed as a Protestant.
I don't know if he is a Protestant, but he does claim that "globetards" attend the Novus Ordo with no evidence. I can't remember the last time I went to a NO. It was years ago..
.I'm Protestant because I don't respond to every idiotic post you make, retard?
And Smedley Butler is outed as a Protestant.
I don't know if he is a Protestant, but he does claim that "globetards" attend the Novus Ordo with no evidence. I can't remember the last time I went to a NO. It was years ago.With your endorsement of all things modern (Popes, encyclicals, science, cosmology, etc.) you struck me as a false-obedience Novus Ordo-type. Not a TLM-type.
.I missed this one.
And Smedley Butler is outed as a Protestant.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about happenby's notable authority on St. Augustine:I did a bit of research into Leo Ferrari and his claim that St. Augustine believed the earth was flat.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari#cite_note-dvd-notes-9)
It is quite possible that any claims that he made about St. Augustine believing the earth is flat were part of his satirical writings. I would not expect happenby to be able to tell.
...this passage includes an unambiguous description of the earth (covered by water)as a globular mass (globosa moles). This creates a considerable obstacle to anyattempt to impute to Augustine a flat-earth cosmology.C.P.E. Nothaft, "Augustine and the Shape of the Earth: A Critique of Leo Ferrari," Augustinian Studies 42:1 (2011) 33-48
I did a bit of research into Leo Ferrari and his claim that St. Augustine believed the earth was flat.Haha - your Nothaft paper undermines your lies Jaynek!
Leo Ferrari does seem to have written a scholarly, not satirical, paper in which he challenged the majority opinion among historians that St. Augustine believed the world is a globe. While I have not read Ferrari's paper, I found a scholarly critique of it which gave counter-arguments for all of Ferrari's points and specifically mentions the passage I quoted in the OP.
This author states that it "is completely ignored by Ferrari even though it can be read as an unequivocal endorsement of the spherical model"
C.P.E. Nothaft, "Augustine and the Shape of the Earth: A Critique of Leo Ferrari," Augustinian Studies 42:1 (2011) 33-48
Haha - your Nothaft paper undermines your lies Jaynek!It does not say either of those things . Show the quotes of what you think said that.
It says medieval belief was that the earth was flat!
It says Isidore of Seville thought earth was flat!
Is that why you didn't link it? You didn't want to get "found out"
Hilarious
Haha your paper also says there was strong Christian opposition to ball earth at the Antioch school!
No wonder you won't post it!
Up until around the 5th century Christian thinkers are characterized as belonging to either the Alexandrian or Antiochian school of thought, named after the cities in which they were based. They had different perspectives on Scripture and theology. The Church Fathers were associated with these schools.https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/globe-earthers-worship-666/msg590433/#msg590433 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/globe-earthers-worship-666/msg590433/#msg590433)
There is a pattern in views of the shape of the earth that tends to correspond to these schools. Antioch corresponds to belief in flat earth, Alexandria to belief in globe earth. (Lacantius is an exception in that he is against globe earth while being associated with the Alexandrian school.) So it is not surprising that you have been able to find many Fathers who believed in a globe earth.
Oh, look! I have the link to that article for everyone to see. The writer would have us believe earth is a globe, but he winds up showing all the Fathers who fought for the flat earth throughout the centuries proving Catholics were flat earthers because of Scripture. You have to get in fairly deeply to get to the meat and potatoes (and get past the writer's bias), but when you do, its obvious. Jaynek misrepresented the Church's position. She obviously did not want to post this because it proves her wrong.This link does not work for me.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/163a34b4214bd2ad?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1
This link does not work for me.Why won't you upload your pdf?
Why don't you back up your assertions with some quotes?
Haha - your paper says Diodore the Bishop of Tarsus in 378 warned against the grave sin of astrology and its connection to the error of spherical earth.It is an academic paper, not a flat-earther site giving cherry-picked proof verses. The author is attempting to give an overview of all the opinions. He describes people in the Antioch school who were against flat earth as well as other Fathers who were open to the idea.
Sorry, here's the link properly attached and linkable.Thank you.
It is worth pointing out that all of these authors wrote in Greek and that their cosmological views failed to exert any influence on Latin Medieval thought. This is particularly important to stress in the case of Cosmas Indicopleustes, whose work, after its initial “discovery” at the end of the seventeenth century, was often perversely used to prove that educated people in the Middle Ages thought that they lived on a flat disk under a vaulted sky.19 But there is reason to believe that even for their own time and place, the views of Diodore and Cosmas can hardly be taken as representative. Cosmas in particular was obviously well-acquainted with the spherical model, which he sometimes describes in great detail in order to refute it, and the polemical tone of his Topography suggests that it remained the dominant view in his own time, that is, even among Christians.
It is an academic paper, not a flat-earther site giving cherry-picked proof verses. The author is attempting to give an overview of all the opinions. He describes people in the Antioch school who were against flat earth as well as other Fathers who were open to the idea.In his attempt to promote the globe, Nothaft emphasizes several proofs for Christendom defending flat earth. He even admits that from 300-800AD any beliefs beyond the upper echelons of academia isn't quite clear. Ha ha. Just what we talked about before. The people held to flat earth because of Scripture and didn't hold the view of those whose papers they didn't have access to. Not only are Nothafts proofs for a sphere leaps in logic (against Augustine) he can't help but use the Church Fathers to attempt to prove the Church wrong. What a loser this guy is. Yet, like Dickenson White, he spills a little too much ink and slits his own throat.
You are not somehow scoring points every time you find a reference to somebody who believed the earth is flat. Ever since I started posting on this topic I have said that there was no consensus among the Fathers. Some believed the earth was flat and others thought it was a sphere. There is nothing in this paper that contradicts this or anything else that I have claimed.
Thank you.Who cares what Nutjob said about Cosmas, he's a spherical earther attempting to undermine the truth. Cosmas' exegeses on Moses and Scripture with regards to the Mass is clear, detailed and epic. Not that the writer had any idea how important what Cosmas said was, or he would have tried harder to debunk it. Instead he says no one listened to Cosmas. Uh, wrong. Some of the Fathers expounded on this as well. People know flat earth is Scriptural and do not even attempt to hide it when globers say things like:
Did you notice what he had to say about Cosmas?
In his attempt to promote the globe, Nothaft emphasizes several proofs for Christendom defending flat earth. He even admits that from 300-800AD any beliefs beyond the upper echelons of academia isn't quite clear. Ha ha. Just what we talked about before. The people held to flat earth because of Scripture and didn't hold the view of those whose papers they didn't have access to. Not only are Nothafts proofs for a sphere leaps in logic (against Augustine) he can't help but use the Church Fathers to attempt to prove the Church wrong. What a loser this guy is. Yet, like Dickenson White, he spills a little too much ink and slits his own throat.Nothafts makes a logical and coherent case for his thesis. He is not "attempting to prove the Church wrong". There is no reason to think he is hostile to the Church in any way. He does, however, show that you are wrong which is not the same thing at all.
Who cares what Nutjob said about Cosmas, he's a spherical earther attempting to undermine the truth. Cosmas' exegeses on Moses and Scripture with regards to the Mass is clear, detailed and epic. Not that the writer had any idea how important what Cosmas said was, or he would have tried harder to debunk it. Instead he says no one listened to Cosmas. Uh, wrong. Some of the Fathers expounded on this as well. People know flat earth is Scriptural and do not even attempt to hide it when globers say things like:Cosmas was a monk whose writings are of interest but hold no authority whatsoever. He was not important or influential. Nobody needs to debunk him because simply reading what he wrote is enough for most people to recognize that Cosmas was a kook.
"Both philosophically and cartographically Cosmas' ideas were strictly dictated by his literal interpretation of the Bible."
About the Christian Topography
The Christian Topography contains references to nearly seventy authorities selected from among philosophers, historians, travellers, doctors of the Church, soldiers, and statesmen. Comas' primary objective and motivation in writing the treatise was to discredit the "false and heathen doctrine of a spherical earth".
Historian globers readily admit (only because they have to):
"Christian Topography contains, in all probability, the oldest Christian maps available."
Cosmas was well respected, his writings preserved in the Vatican library for centuries, and his maps are the oldest maps in the world. They definitely take him seriously. Only the globers say otherwise.
Thank you.Yes.
Did you notice what he had to say about Cosmas?
With your endorsement of all things modern (Popes, encyclicals, science, cosmology, etc.) you struck me as a false-obedience Novus Ordo-type. Not a TLM-type.If you had some decent arguments for flat earth, you would not be reduced to constantly slandering me like this. Not only do you resort to personal attacks, but they aren't even true.
Nothafts makes a logical and coherent case for his thesis. He is not "attempting to prove the Church wrong". There is no reason to think he is hostile to the Church in any way. He does, however, show that you are wrong which is not the same thing at all.Then why does Nofthath mention that Copernicus condemns flat earth in the first page?
He backs up the account of history that I have been stating: There was no consensus in the Patristic period. Once St. Bede clearly taught spherical earth around 700 AD that view became the consensus of educated Catholics (and we can only speculate about the uneducated ones).
You have not been able to produce a single quote in favour of flat earth from after 700. Not from a Saint, a Doctor, a Pope, or anyone with any sort of authority. The closest you come is to pretend that condemnations of heliocentrism somehow imply that the Church had a problem with spherical earth. This is obviously wrong since geocentrism at the time of Galileo incorporated a sphericical earth.
Belief in flat earth virtually disappeared by 700. It was revived by heretics in the mid 1800s. It cannot reasonably be seen as an integral part of Catholicism just because some of the Fathers believed it.
If you had some decent arguments for flat earth, you would not be reduced to constantly slandering me like this. Not only do you resort to personal attacks, but they aren't even true.You're the one who called me Protestant, lady.
You're the one who called me Protestant, lady.I did not call you a Protestant. We can add that to the list of things you've made up about me.
You think that's not an insult?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the ghetto.
Then why does Nofthath mention that Copernicus condemns flat earth in the first page?Nothaft wrote:
Why would Copernicus have to mention flat earth in the 1500's if EVERYONE knew it was a ball?
Ever since Copernicus’s mocking reference to Lactantius’s rejection of the earth’s sphericity in the preface to De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), the flat earth has been a symbol of ignorance and backward thinking, an archetype for everything that separates our modern mindset from that of the “Dark Ages.”
For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution.Copernicus clearly addresses an audience that takes for granted that Lactantius was wrong to mock globe earth. Copernicus uses this common assumption to make the point that he does not expect non-astronomers to understand his theory of heliocentrism.
Ever since I started posting on this topic I have said that there was no consensus among the Fathers..
Some believed the earth was flat and others thought it was a sphere.
I missed this one..
Eat my shorts, Globestat.
Quote from: aryzia on May 25, 2018, 11:50:21 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611135/#msg611135).QuoteQuote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 10:53:59 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611128/#msg611128)
QuoteQuote.[color][size][font]
Take your eyes and try the experiments I described many times all ready.
.
Or, don't, and continue in your obstreperous nescience.
I did. Besides being convoluted at times, they don't prove earth a globe. To be clear, every last one is an utter failure.[/font][/size][/color]
.
You did? When?
Provide links to your description of your experiments.
.
Where is the link to when you measured the angle between the quarter moon and the sun?
Where is the link to when you projected the line of sight from a full moon at midnight toward the sun's position?
Where is the link to when you charted the path of the sun setting during the equinox along an east-west landmark?
Where is the link to when you tested the angle above the horizon to Polaris at different latitudes?
Where is the link to when you carried a theodolite to a mountain top to sight the elevation level above the horizon?
.
Or, are you actually providing yet more corroboration with your already-established obstreperous nescience?
.
You're the one who called me Protestant, lady..
You think that's not an insult?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the ghetto.
Cosmas was a monk whose writings are of interest but hold no authority whatsoever. He was not important or influential. Nobody needs to debunk him because simply reading what he wrote is enough for most people to recognize that Cosmas was a kook.The following will probably slide over glober's heads but it shows the depth and dimension of the effects of pagan globalism on Christendom, shows some who fought it, and even shows some of the great Catholic Cathedrals reflect the flat earth because of Cosmas' book Christian Topography.
"Only globers" means practically everyone. Only the tiny tiny minority that is flat-earthers respects the opinions of Cosmas.
[...]Emporer Justinian is considered a Saint by Eastern Orthodox schismatics, not by Roman Catholics. Apparently all your sources cited above show support for flat earth from schismatics.
Emperor Justinian
The Cosmological Philosophy of Imperial Orthodox Christian Byzantium was Mosaic Biblical Flat Earth Cosmography. In 'The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997: Travelling Through the Byzantine Ummayad Period' Dr. Irfan Shahid of Dumbarton Oaks contributed an article entitled 'The Madaba Mosaic Map Revisited: Some New Observations on Its Purpose and Meaning' which states the following on page 151:
"That Imperial Byzantium was also aware of Moses the Cosmographer in the sixth century is reflected in the fact that none other than Justinian himself spoke against the pagan Greek spherical view of the Universe and clearly implied strong support for the opposite conception, originally owed to Moses in Genesis, and held strongly by the school in Antioch, when he thundered his anathemas against Origenism at the Synod of Constantinople in AD 553."
Consistent with all Orthodox Churches, the architecture of the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople and all Churches which Emperor Justinian built is a model of the Cosmos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia)
The excellent, learned, and exhaustive Madaba Map Book containing the quotation above may be obtained through the Madaba Map website:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/index.html (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/index.html)
The above quote in bold shows that Emperor St Justinian spoke loudly against the Greek pagan view of the cosmos, but even more importantly, the quote ties together the shape of the earth/cosmos, according to Moses, expounded upon by Cosmas (Severian and others), helps deny the strange notions about the spiritual world that Origen had begun to teach.
This curious attempt to harmonize a childish Biblical exegesis (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm) with ordinary phenomena and the current opinions of the time is at least superior to the extraordinary geographical hypotheses of that day. Aside from the fact that the theories of Cosmas exercised no influence, they are not of sufficient importance to affect the genuine worth of several portions of the "Topography". The value of these passages rests on the methodical conscientiousness of the simple merchant, as it is seen, for example, in the careful copy of the so-called Inscription of Adulis (Monumentum Adulitanum) which has been preserved to Greek epigraphy only in the copy of Cosmas. Cosmas, with the aid of his travelling companion, Menas, took a copy of it in 522 for the governor of the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) king Elesbaan of Abyssinia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02032c.htm), retaining a replica for himself. Of equal importance is the information he collected concerning Zanzibar and the Indian Ocean, and what he learned as to the trade of Abyssinia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02032c.htm) with the interior of Africa (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01181a.htm) and of Egypt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm) with the East. The best-known and most celebrated part of the "Topography" is the description, in the ninth book, of Ceylon and of the plants and animals of India (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07722a.htm). The work also gives much valuable information concerning the extension of Christianity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) in his day. The Vatican manuscript (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09614b.htm) of the "Christian Topography" has explanatory maps and sketches, either made by Cosmas himself or prepared under his direction; they are of value as the first efforts of patristic geography.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04404a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04404a.htm)
Every single time, flat earth is found in sound thinking, tied to Scripture, to Saints, to Fathers, to other Catholic teachings, even if somewhat buried in history by evil doers, yet always poking up through the ashes to show that the cosmology of the pagans is not only false, but to them, the foundation of their war against Christendom. And flat earth is the foundation of the war against paganism.Belief in flat earth is not "buried in history" by "evildoers." The reason you can't find references to it among Catholics after 700 is because Catholics did not believe in it. The belief disappeared.
Globers think the popularity of spherical earth is what's most important for determining what reality is. Such failed doctrine shows no respect for what is true, or what is related to truth, especially during times when truth is not popular. Spherical earth depends on paganism, popularity, scoffing, indoctrination, nitpicking Scripture, etc. Flat earth reaches to the foundation of Christianity, opens understanding and extends to teachings regarding the spiritual realm as St. Justinian's condemnations of Origen's spiritual misconceptions reveal. Truly amazing!
Emporer Justinian is considered a Saint by Eastern Orthodox schismatics, not by Roman Catholics. Apparently all your sources cited above show support for flat earth from schismatics.
Justinian I (/dʒʌˈstɪniən/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English); Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus; Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Φλάβιος Πέτρος Σαββάτιος Ἰουστινιανός Flávios Pétros Sabbátios Ioustinianós; c. 482 – 14 November 565
The East–West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_(Christian)) between what are now the Roman Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) and Eastern Orthodox churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church), which has lasted since the 11th century.
Bzzzzzzt. Jaynek, you're going to have to do better. Eastern and Western Catholics were united prior to the Great Schism.
This is not surprising since the Eastern Christianity was more influenced by the school of Antioch, while Western Christianity (i.e. Roman Catholicism) was more influenced the school of Alexandria. This is the one that Origen belonged to. (You never had any problem with Origen when you thought you could claim him as a flat earth supporter. Now that you realize you can't, you seem to have discovered problems with his theology.)
There is some value to Cosmas's work in terms of his observations. Nobody (other than flat earthers) holds his ideas on flat earth in respect. Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04404a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04404a.htm)
Belief in flat earth is not "buried in history" by "evildoers." The reason you can't find references to it among Catholics after 700 is because Catholics did not believe in it. The belief disappeared.
In Western Christianity (as in the Alexandrian school) there was no war with pagan science. The ideas of pagans were not rejected a priori. Rather they were examined to find what was of value and what could be reconciled with Christianity. St. Augustine used the imagery of the escaping Hebrews taking gold from the Egyptians to describe this. Pagan astronomy proved useful for calculating the date of Easter. (This is one reason St. Bede wrote about spherical earth.) And, from 700 AD onwards, the consensus among Catholics was to interpret Scripture in a way that was compatible with a spherical earth.
Spherical earth, incorporated in a geocentric model, is the traditional belief of Catholics for over a thousand years. If you reject it, you are not fighting pagans, you are rejecting your heritage as a Catholic.
The following will probably slide over glober's heads but it shows the depth and dimension of the effects of pagan globalism on Christendom, shows some who fought it, and even shows some of the great Catholic Cathedrals reflect the flat earth because of Cosmas' book Christian Topography.I left this part to address separately because I wanted to look at the source of happenby's quote. I had trouble getting the link that she gave to load so I found another. Here it is: http://www.myoldmaps.com/early-medieval-monographs/202-cosmas-indicopleustes/202-cosmas.pdf (http://www.myoldmaps.com/early-medieval-monographs/202-cosmas-indicopleustes/202-cosmas.pdf)
^(Cosmas' works) flourished at the time when Christianity perhaps most entirely and exclusively controlled a major area of the civilized world; and he seems conscious, not of a feeble and barbarized mind, but rather of having all knowledge for his province. He was not without profane science, but he now saw it (and saw through it) in the light of theology, the crown of sciences.
REFERENCES:
*Beazley, C., The Dawn of Modem Geography, volume I, pp. 273-303.
*Brown, L.A., The Story of Maps, pp. 91-102.
*Harley, J.B., The History of Cartography, Volume One, pp. 261-63, 319, 348, Figures 15.1, 15.2.
*McCrindle, J.W., The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian monk, Hakluyt Society, Series I, vol . 98, 1897.
*illustrated
This ^ statement shows that Cosmas' works were highly regarded in early Christendom and those works were associated with Catholic thought and theology. Cosmas worked tirelessly against the pagan notion of the world in his day, which just so happens to be identical with the pagan model of earth accepted today.
The place of Cosmas in history has been sometimes misconceived. No scholar admits that his works had any major impact or traceable influence on medieval geographical thought. For, on the whole, its influence is only slightly, and occasionally, traceable. Its author stated his position as an article of Christian faith; but even in those times there was anything but a general agreement with his didactic conclusions.
Isaiah’s statement, “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,” was regarded as one altogether adequate on which to found a theory of the form of the earth, and it was accepted by such biblical interpreters as Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Severian of Gabala, by those who were known as the Syrians, by Procopius and Decuil. Men, however, such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Philoponos inclined strongly toward the Aristotelian doctrine of a spherical earth. Isidore of Seville (#205) appears to have been a supporter of the spherical doctrine, as was also the Venerable Bede, who, in his De atura rerum, upholds the doctrine of a spherical earth on practically the same grounds as those advanced by Aristotle.
In addition to the above mentioned classical/pagan writers, Cosmas also takes issue with fellow Christian writers, such as Saint Basil, Isidore of Seville, Origen and others who either avoided the controversy of a spherical earth or argued on the side of the pagan scientists. Some of his fellow Christian writers openly declared that it did not matter so far as faith was concerned whether the earth was a sphere, a cylinder or a disc. But this sort of rationalizing was not good enough for Cosmas.
Emporer Justinian is considered a Saint by Eastern Orthodox schismatics, not by Roman Catholics. Apparently all your sources cited above show support for flat earth from schismatics.While we can recognize him as a Catholic, since he lived before the Great Schism, Catholics do not refer to him as a Saint. Your use of that title seemed to indicate you were getting your information from Eastern Orthodox sources.
You did it again Jaynek...
Justinian I (/dʒʌˈstɪniən/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English); Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus; Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Φλάβιος Πέτρος Σαββάτιος Ἰουστινιανός Flávios Pétros Sabbátios Ioustinianós; c. 482 – 14 November 565
The East–West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_(Christian)) between what are now the Roman Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) and Eastern Orthodox churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church), which has lasted since the 11th century.
History again corrects you, Jaynek. Eastern and Western Catholics were united prior to the Great Schism so Justinian's words are a Catholic source.
While we can recognize him as a Catholic, since he lived before the Great Schism, Catholics do not refer to him as a Saint. Your use of that title seemed to indicate you were getting your information from Eastern Orthodox sources.Since he was Catholic Saint then, he's a Catholic Saint now. It doesn't magically change because of the Schism.
Jayne said:My last post took quotes from a source that you provided. Your post above, which you begin by lecturing me about my choice of sources, goes on to cite a big quote from Wikipedia. This is scarcely known for being a Catholic source.
There is some value to Cosmas's work in terms of his observations. Nobody (other than flat earthers) holds his ideas on flat earth in respect.
Actually, Jayne, your sources are your problem because they are drawn from those who work against the Church, and you do it in the attempt to make modern pagan cosmology seem to look reasonable.
Since he was Catholic Saint then, he's a Catholic Saint now. It doesn't magically change because of the Schism.He is not recognized as a Saint by Catholics. If you want people to think you are Orthodox, go ahead and call him a Saint.
My last post took quotes from a source that you provided. Your post above, which you begin by lecturing me about my choice of sources, goes on to cite a big quote from Wikipedia. This is scarcely known for being a Catholic source.Everything you say is false or unproven. You have yet to show that spherical earth was a part of traditional Catholic cosmology for over a thousand years. Also your OP has been proven false. Your assertions against Cosmas are false. Nothing you have said in this entire thread is correct.
It is obvious to anyone reading your posts that your method of judging the value of a source is based on whether it supports your claims, rather than any sort of objective criteria. One of your favourite ways to dismiss evidence that shows you are wrong is to claim there is a problem with the source. You also like to claim that passages say something other than what they actually say. When neither of these strategies work you just ignore the evidence. And so, in spite of the massive amounts of evidence that I have presented in this forum, you continue to assert that I have not shown any evidence. On the contrary, you are willfully blind to the evidence.
Spherical earth was a part of traditional Catholic cosmology for over a thousand years. You refuse to acknowledge this fact because it destroys your entire rationale for being a flat-earther. You want to see yourself as part of a small group bravely defending the Faith against evil pagan forces, standing up to persecution and mockery. But you are not defending the Faith.
Flat earth has never been a part of the Catholic faith. It was an opinion of some Fathers before it disappeared, but it was never considered a matter of faith. This is a fiction that you make up for yourself to be able to see yourself as some sort of hero. All your zeal is wasted on a fiction rather than on the actual Truths of Catholicism. You are not accomplishing anything for God. All you are doing is making the Church look bad.
Since he was Catholic Saint then, he's a Catholic Saint now. It doesn't magically change because of the Schism.
He is not recognized as a Saint by Catholics. If you want people to think you are Orthodox, go ahead and call him a Saint.
Everything you say is false or unproven. You have yet to show that spherical earth was a part of traditional Catholic cosmology for over a thousand years. Also your OP has been proven false. Your assertions against Cosmas are false. Nothing you have said in this entire thread is correct.Well you are predictable, at least. As usual, you dismiss the evidence and fall back on saying it is unproven. You will never accept proof that goes against your beliefs, so it will always remain "unproven" in your eyes.
Justinian was a great defender the Catholic Church and history about him has been tainted, which is sad.
One can always count on Meg to defend her flat earth buddies. She does it even when they preach heresy.
Whether he was a saint or not, his works are still something to be considered. Those who dismiss him because he may not be viewed as a saint are just using that as an excuse to dismiss his works.
I, for one, had not paid much attention to him before, but I'll try to study up on his work, and I appreciate that you've brought him up on this thread.
One can always count on Meg to defend her flat earth buddies. She does it even when they preach heresy.
Well you are predictable, at least. As usual, you dismiss the evidence and fall back on saying it is unproven. You will never accept proof that goes against your beliefs, so it will always remain "unproven" in your eyes.Everything here is predictable because you're always proven wrong. You said Cosmas' opinion didn't matter to anyone, but I've shown it mattered quite a lot to the Church of antiquity. St. Bede was a glober? So? Any Saint can be mistaken. His opinion was in the vast minority. Worse for your case, St. Bede never taught how earth is a sphere according to Scripture, nor according to the Fathers, nor how what he believes actually works or relates to the Church in any way. In other words, it remained his opinion, not a teaching. Spherical earth resurfaced in Christendom in the 1600's after the effects of Cosmas' work in 550AD, which is about 1000 years after the fact. Not great for globers since anything held for 1000 years is considered dogma. Your OP is false because you utterly failed to prove Augustine was a globe earther. And the biggest faux pas of yours: that the Church or Fathers or Scripture teach global heliocentrism, ever. You have not, cannot, and will never provide proof of that because it doesn't exist.
A few days ago I posted quotes from St. Bede, unambiguously teaching that the earth is a sphere. I have cited many other sources to show that this remained the consensus Catholic view from this point onward.
All you need to do to prove me wrong is come up with Catholics teaching flat earth after 700. But you have not done that.
And no, nobody proved my OP false.
Other than your flat earth buddies, everyone can see that you are the one who is consistently incorrect.
Yes, you can count on me to defend my flat earth buddies. It isn't a heresy to believe in a flat earth.My point is not that flat earth is a heresy (I see no reason to think that it is) but that you appear to form your opinions, not by understanding and evaluating arguments, but by going along with your "side". You do not seem like a person in pursuit of truth, but like someone playing a game. You agree with your "team" and disagree with the other "team" regardless of the value of what is said. You do this in regard to flat earth and also with your anti-sede views.
Everything here is predictable because you're always proven wrong. You said Cosmas' opinion didn't matter to anyone, but I've shown it mattered quite a lot to the Church of antiquity. St. Bede was a glober? So? Any Saint can be mistaken. His opinion was in the vast minority. Worse for your case, St. Bede never taught how earth is a sphere according to Scripture, nor according to the Fathers, nor how what he believes actually works or relates to the Church in any way. In other words, it remained his opinion, not a teaching. Spherical earth resurfaced in Christendom in the 1600's after the effects of Cosmas' work in 550AD, which is about 1000 years after the fact. Not great for globers since anything held for 1000 years is considered dogma. Your OP is false because you utterly failed to prove Augustine was a globe earther. And the biggest faux pas of yours: that the Church or Fathers or Scripture teach global heliocentrism, ever. You have not, cannot, and will never provide proof of that because it doesn't exist.I have never claimed that there is a Catholic tradition of global heliocentrism. The tradition was global geocentrism.
I don't care what anyone thinks and don't base my information on popularity. Unlike you, who are aching for attention in order to shore up your errors.
Error from day one. Error in this thread. Error in the details. Error for lack of sources. Error in conclusion. You've hit a mighty brick wall selling error here and you contumaciously land on the wrong side every time. Earth is not a globe.
Saint Hildegard (Hildegard von Bingen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_von_Bingen), 1098–1179), depicted the spherical earth several times in her work Liber Divinorum Operum.[71] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-71)And there are many more examples of Catholics believing in spherical earth throughout the middle ages. (I might as well use Wikipedia, since happenby will say it is a bad source no matter what I use.) It is absurd to claim that spherical earth resurfaced in 1600.
Johannes de Sacrobosco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Sacrobosco) (c. 1195 – c. 1256 AD) wrote a famous work on Astronomy called Tractatus de Sphaera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_de_Sphaera), based on Ptolemy, which primarily considers the sphere of the sky. However, it contains clear proofs of the earth's sphericity in the first chapter.[72] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-72)[73]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-73)
Many scholastic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism) commentators on Aristotle's On the Heavens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens) and Sacrobosco's Treatise on the Sphere unanimously agreed that the earth is spherical or round.[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-74) Grant observes that no author who had studied at a medieval university (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university) thought that the earth was flat.[75]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-75)
The Elucidarium of Honorius Augustodunensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius_Augustodunensis) (c. 1120), an important manual for the instruction of lesser clergy, which was translated into Middle English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English), Old French (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French), Middle High German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_High_German), Old Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Russian), Middle Dutch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Dutch), Old Norse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse), Icelandic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language), Spanish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language), and several Italian dialects, explicitly refers to a spherical Earth. Likewise, the fact that Bertold von Regensburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertold_von_Regensburg) (mid-13th century) used the spherical Earth as an illustration in a sermon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon) shows that he could assume this knowledge among his congregation. The sermon was preached in the vernacular German, and thus was not intended for a learned audience.
Dante's Divine Comedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy), written in Italian in the early 14th century, portrays Earth as a sphere, discussing implications such as the different stars visible in the southern hemisphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_hemisphere), the altered position of the sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), and the various timezones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timezone) of the Earth.
The Portuguese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) exploration of Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) and Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia), Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus)'s voyage to the Americas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas) (1492) and, finally, Ferdinand Magellan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan)'s circuмnavigation of the earth (1519–21) provided practical evidence of the global shape of the earth.
I have never claimed that there is a Catholic tradition of global heliocentrism. The tradition was global geocentrism.Global geocentrism isn't taught by the Fathers. You have not shown us (any) Fathers of the Church to prove your notion, so to say that you have a right to the Fathers of the Church on this is ridiculous because none of them EVER makes a case for the globe, nor argue for it based on Scripture, let alone digress with great beauty about the liturgy and Church in relation to the earth. Fathers of the Church unanimously taught flat earth and they based it on their forefathers, antiquity and Scripture.
You are wrong about everything. Everybody but a few flat earthers can see it.
A reminder for anyone who is not a willfully blind flat-earther:You rejected my use of Wiki, yet use it yourself to prove Catholic teaching. Lol. Wiki may have some facts, but to say St. Hildegard taught earth is a globe is a lame attempt to project your false notions onto Saints and the Church. When you provide a saint's teaching, based in Scripture, then we have something to deal with. Otherwise, you're without.
And there are many more examples of Catholics believing in spherical earth throughout the middle ages. (I might as well use Wikipedia, since happenby will say it is a bad source no matter what I use.) It is absurd to claim that spherical earth resurfaced in 1600.
From the time of Bede teaching spherical earth around 700, this was the consistent consensus of Catholics. If anything held for over a thousand years were a dogma (as happenby claims) then spherical earth would be a dogma. There is, however, no such principle.
Global geocentrism isn't taught by the Fathers. You have not shown us (any) Fathers of the Church to prove your notion, so to say that you have a right to the Fathers of the Church on this is ridiculous because none of them EVER makes a case for the globe, nor argue for it based on Scripture, let alone digress with great beauty about the liturgy and Church in relation to the earth. Fathers of the Church unanimously taught flat earth and they based it on their forefathers, antiquity and Scripture.No, global geocentrism was not taught by the Fathers. It became the consensus of the Catholic world after the patristic period.
You rejected my use of Wiki, yet use it yourself to prove Catholic teaching. Lol. Wiki may have some facts, but to say St. Hildegard taught earth is a globe is a lame attempt to project your false notions onto Saints and the Church. When you provide a saint's teaching, based in Scripture, then we have something to deal with. Otherwise, you're without.I did not reject your use of Wikipedia, just commented on the irony of you using it after lecturing me about using Catholic sources.
.
The Fathers of the Church did not unanimously teach flat earth. That is just another one of your fictions. Several Fathers taught that the shape of the earth was not important to the Faith and we should not let it distract us. These are the Fathers that you should have paid attention to, instead of developing this obsession of yours.
St. Hildegard, like St. Bede, St. Albert, St. Thomas, etc. thought that the shape of the earth was something to determine with science. There is no explicit teaching about the shape of the earth in the Bible. It is something that people like you imagine by taking figures of speech literally and otherwise reading it into the text. All these Saints recognized that Scripture was silent on the shape of the earth and that Catholics should use observation and reason to figure it out.
And this idea, held by all these Saints, is taught in Providentissimus Deus, a magisterial teaching. But you manage to twist its meaning, just as you twist Scripture. You aren't understanding anything the way that Catholics are supposed to. You are not defending the Catholic faith; you are perverting it.
The best summary description of Cosmas's view by far is contained in ten pages of the first volume of Professor Beazeley's three volume "The Dawn of Modern Geography" the first volume of which was published in 1897. (I doubt this is on the web.) I believe Cosmas's view is superior in general, but Rowbotham probably has him on the size of the sun as Cosmas merely argues that it is probably at least as small as a fifth the size of the earth, whereas Rowbotham calculated that the sun and moon are each exactly thrity-two miles in diameter..
To briefly summarize Cosmas's cosmography, the four riverheads of the Garden of Eden are actual rivers that flow westward from the Far East where Eden literally exists and go underground for a bit and diverge into the various underground water streams of this world, and the main streams of which surface in the mountains becoming actual rivers in this world which flow into the sea (the Ganges, the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates). He also believes there exists a great Mountain in the north around which the sun circles once a day. The shadow cast by this mountain creates night in the part of the world on the other side of the mountain. Among other things, the Heavenly Host of Angels keep the fixed stars rotating.
."Science" today has gone off the rails and I'd rather be associated with a Catholic than pagans any day. You seem to think that science is automatically objective reality. Is that true of NASA science?
You keep bringing up this ridiculous Cosmas character as if he's your poster boy for flat-earthism.
..
He's your man! Whose existence and work was forgotten for 1,000 years, and for good reason!
.
-- He thought the sun is 1/5 the size of the Earth -- so was the sun "flat" too?
-- He said the Ganges, Tigris, Euphrates and the Nile flow from the east to the west. Really?
-- How do "fixed stars" rotate in the heavens? Well, of course, the Heavenly Host of Angels keep them rotating.
So that way, they can be "fixed" and still rotate, because that's the work of the Angels, to contradict reality.
-- And the clincher, a so-called great Mountain in the north whose shadow cast over the earth explains the "flat" earth night!
.
In other words, what Cosmas believed had nothing to do with science, or objective reality.
It was all about his subjective fantasy world, his Shangri-La dreamworld where reality is in the mind!
He could have been the inspiration for Kant, Comte, Hegell, Hume and Nietszche! Who were enemies of the Church!!
A reminder for anyone who is not a willfully blind flat-earther:The propaganda of the pagans did indeed infiltrate and many people believed the model. But that doesn't mean the earth is a globe as they claim. And no, just because pagans were teaching globe earth for 1000 years, that wouldn't make it a dogma. Obviously, it has to be a teaching of the the Church. The Church never taught earth is a globe.
And there are many more examples of Catholics believing in spherical earth throughout the middle ages. (I might as well use Wikipedia, since happenby will say it is a bad source no matter what I use.) It is absurd to claim that spherical earth resurfaced in 1600.
From the time of Bede teaching spherical earth around 700, this was the consistent consensus of Catholics. If anything held for over a thousand years were a dogma (as happenby claims) then spherical earth would be a dogma. There is, however, no such principle.
"Science" today has gone off the rails and I'd rather be associated with a Catholic than pagans any day. You seem to think that science is automatically objective reality. Is that true of NASA science?.
The propaganda of the pagans did indeed infiltrate and many people believed the model. But that doesn't mean the earth is a globe as they claim. And no, just because pagans were teaching globe earth for 1000 years, that wouldn't make it a dogma. Obviously, it has to be a teaching of the the Church. The Church never taught earth is a globe..
.Its the globe earthers that hold the NASA/Copernican/Pythagorean/modern notion of the cosmos, so its the globers succuмbing to the indoctrination of pagans.
Wrong. What's gone "off the rails" today is ridiculous flat-earthism.
When you associate with flat-earthers you're associating with pagans all day long, not with Catholics.
Objective reality is what can be seen and measured first hand, such as the spherical earth can.
.
All flat-earthers have to fear is sphere itself.
.
Flat Earth Society adherents can be found all around the globle.
Then why does Nofthath mention that Copernicus condemns flat earth in the first page?
Why would Copernicus have to mention flat earth in the 1500's if EVERYONE knew it was a ball?
That's a good question, which has not been answered.Right. Besides, what part of society hundreds of years ago wasn't struggling just to stay alive? 95%? What percentage of men were turning in upper circles of academia, or even attending regular school to learn earth is a spinning ball? 2-5%? What regular guy had the time or ability to attend such learning? Telling an ordinary man, that he was standing sideways on a ball, would not have made much of an impression on the level headed and well grounded. Terms like "level playing field" meaning, playing fair, and the use of the word "spin" in lieu of the word 'lies', are some of the etymological fallout for attempting to tell a regular guy earth is a globe. The signs of pressured indoctrination existed then, but only came to fruition in our century, when more people had the luxury of owning or reading books, and later even more convincing, after man went to the moon and saw the globe earth. As the centuries passed, the upper echelon were brought around to globe earth, no doubt, but the majority, the ordinary man, was brought up to full speed only in the last 100+ years or so. So saying that the majority of men of the past believed earth was a globe is the depth of ignorance.
If "everyone knew that the earth was a ball," then the flat earth would not have to be mentioned. Though I suppose that the idea of who "everyone" is, is to mean only those who are highly educated in mathematics and physics, since they are supposedly the only ones who are qualified to address the subject. They believe that they maintain the right to speak for "everyone," even if not everyone agrees with them.
Catholics who do not understand highly advanced science aren't allowed an opinion, and therefore they can't be counted as "everyone." In fact, they don't count at all. Those who use scripture to show a flat earth, as the Fathers did, don't count, since they (we) were relying on Scripture, which has been "corrected" by science.
And as "everyone" knows, science is always right. Science is the new religion, and it requires obedience to its dogmas.
Its the globe earthers that hold the NASA/Copernican/Pythagorean/modern notion of the cosmos, so its the globers succuмbing to the indoctrination of pagans..
The fear of the sphere is all in the sphere of your mind.
No one walks around the outside of a ball. To date.
That's a good question, which has not been answered..
If "everyone knew that the earth was a ball," then the flat earth would not have to be mentioned. Though I suppose that the idea of who "everyone" is, is to mean only those who are highly educated in mathematics and physics, since they are supposedly the only ones who are qualified to address the subject. They believe that they maintain the right to speak for "everyone," even if not everyone agrees with them.
Catholics who do not understand highly advanced science aren't allowed an opinion, and therefore they can't be counted as "everyone." In fact, they don't count at all. Those who use scripture to show a flat earth, as the Fathers did, don't count, since they (we) were relying on Scripture, which has been "corrected" by science.
And as "everyone" knows, science is always right. Science is the new religion, and it requires obedience to its dogmas.
As the centuries passed, the upper echelon were brought around to globe earth, no doubt, but the majority, the ordinary man, was brought up to full speed only in the last 100+ years or so..
So saying that the majority of men of the past believed earth was a globe is the depth of ignorance.
The propaganda of the pagans did indeed infiltrate and many people believed the model. But that doesn't mean the earth is a globe as they claim. And no, just because pagans were teaching globe earth for 1000 years, that wouldn't make it a dogma. Obviously, it has to be a teaching of the the Church. The Church never taught earth is a globe.There is no magisterial teaching about the shape of the earth, neither that it is flat nor a sphere. But Catholics, with the approval of the Church, believed and taught that the earth is a sphere, for over a thousand years.
That's a good question, which has not been answered.I answered the question in post #72 of this thread.
If "everyone knew that the earth was a ball," then the flat earth would not have to be mentioned.
It is clear enough why Copernicus mentioned it if one looks at the passage:
For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution.
Copernicus clearly addresses an audience that takes for granted that Lactantius was wrong to mock globe earth. Copernicus uses this common assumption to make the point that he does not expect non-astronomers to understand his theory of heliocentrism.
I answered the question in post #72 of this thread.Copernicus, a devil worshiper, setting himself against Lactantius proves every point I've made. The father of persistent globers is the Evil One, and his science is their bible.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611429/#msg611429 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611429/#msg611429)
Quote from: Jaynek on May 27, 2018, 02:57:57 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/st-augustine-believed-the-earth-is-a-sphere/msg611409/#msg611409).QuoteEver since I started posting on this topic I have said that there was no consensus among the Fathers..
Some believed the earth was flat and others thought it was a sphere.
And exactly NONE of them had a telescope or any apparatus to measure celestial angles accurately.
.
What the ordinary layman today can know DIRECTLY by objective observation is far greater than any of the Fathers.
.
What the Fathers had to say about the shape of the earth is a moot point compared to what we have at our disposal today.
.
We have worldwide information at the tip of our fingers.
We have theodolites and access to extremely high mountains.
We have astronomers' tools that put theodolites to shame.
We have satellite data and vast collections of astronomical observations.
The Fathers of the Church had none of these things.
If they HAD had them, there would have been 100% consensus in earth's sphericity.
Right. Besides, what part of society hundreds of years ago wasn't struggling just to stay alive? 95%? What percentage of men were turning in upper circles of academia, or even attending regular school to learn earth is a spinning ball? 2-5%? What regular guy had the time or ability to attend such learning? Telling an ordinary man, that he was standing sideways on a ball, would not have made much of an impression on the level headed and well grounded. Terms like "level playing field" meaning, playing fair, and the use of the word "spin" in lieu of the word 'lies', are some of the etymological fallout for attempting to tell a regular guy earth is a globe. The signs of pressured indoctrination existed then, but only came to fruition in our century, when more people had the luxury of owning or reading books, and later even more convincing, after man went to the moon and saw the globe earth. As the centuries passed, the upper echelon were brought around to globe earth, no doubt, but the majority, the ordinary man, was brought up to full speed only in the last 100+ years or so. So saying that the majority of men of the past believed earth was a globe is the depth of ignorance.
Copernicus, a devil worshiper, setting himself against Lactantius proves every point I've made. The father of persistent globers is the Evil One, and his science is their bible..
.I doubt that she knowingly worships the devil, but he must be pleased with the false Catholicism that she tries to spread. Real Catholicism does not even teach flat earth at all, while in her version she makes it the main focus.
Are you trying to make a name for yourself at the expense of others' reputations?
.
Maybe the problem is that happenby is a devil worshiper.
.
That would explain everything.
I agree. It is the depth of ignorance to say that the majority of men of the past believed in a globe earth. Most Catholics (and non-Catholics) were just trying to survive. What connection would they have to upper academia? Most of my forebears were farmers, in this country and in Europe before that. They had been farming for countless generations. They were very practical and had a lot of common sense.Globe believers practice a kind of separation of Church and science, because they think the Church doesn't know anything about science simply because such knowledge is strictly outside of the scope of the Church. That argument is similar to those who say the Church has no rights over a woman to the point she can abort her own child. Hogwash. The Church has a say in protecting life no matter whose body is involved. The Church also teaches that She proscribes science, not the other way around. Science cannot conflict with Scripture or it's out. The Church gave science at least 500 years, laying low for science to prove it's case. Now that it failed miserably in the face of modern technology as well as the ready-access to the Fathers of the Church, there now remains a good portion of Catholics caught in the modern scientism snare. But why are they wrong when it isn't super obvious to them, or when they think that the Church has nothing to say about these things? Because those who are informed and still scoff prefer to believe science over Scripture, the Fathers, and antiquity on the subject. The globers feign the excuse that the Church never 'technically" said earth was flat, yet all the information lines up for all to see--if they so choose, of course. The Fathers, Catholic scholars, Scripture, the Galileo Affair, even an Index against books came out against the heliocentric model many times in a get-a-clue manner. The proofs are myriad: The enemies of the Church have held and still hold the science of the globe throughout the centuries. Cosmas explained the parallels of foundational liturgy with the foundation of the earth. Enoch explained how the cosmos works over the plane. Scripture describes a flat earth. Saints since have reiterated all of this. Globers still scoff: "Why hasn't God been more open about such an important teaching?" Answer: Because God permits heresy to manifest His glory. God speaks in "parables" so that in seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear. Mathew 13:13 Mark 4:12 Isaiah 6:9 and Luke 8:10
I agree that the fruition of indoctrination only has come in our century, (and the last?). Before that, I would think that the average man would have thought it odd that we live on a ball, or that we all must absolutely believe that we are on a ball. But since we all now must put our faith in "science" instead of what we can observe and read in Scripture, and because the media and school system does not favor religion, we must bow to the great science religion.
I have to wonder what the professed globe earthers love more: the Church, or science?
.Everything I post is from Catholic sources. You really don't post from Catholic sources but from NASA or modern science sources. Consider the source.
Are you trying to make a name for yourself at the expense of others' reputations?
.
Maybe the problem is that happenby is a devil worshiper.
.
That would explain everything.
I doubt that she knowingly worships the devil, but he must be pleased with the false Catholicism that she tries to spread. Real Catholicism does not even teach flat earth at all, while in her version she makes it the main focus.I don't worship the devil knowingly or unknowingly. Good call.
Globe believers practice a kind of separation of Church and science, because they think the Church doesn't know anything about science simply because such knowledge is strictly outside of the scope of the Church.Science is not outside the scope of the Church. Science is properly the servant of the Church. The key ideas of science in the West were developed by devout Catholics who believed that reason would never conflict with faith. They used reason to understand the natural world in order to honour the Creator of the world. They took the science of pagans and searched through it for what was compatible with faith and incorporated into their own thinking. They made observations and they used reason. And their ultimate goal was the glory of God.
Science is not outside the scope of the Church. Science is properly the servant of the Church. The key ideas of science in the West were developed by devout Catholics who believed that reason would never conflict with faith. They used reason to understand the natural world in order to honour the Creator of the world. They took the science of pagans and searched through it for what was compatible with faith and incorporated into their own thinking. They made observations and they used reason. And their ultimate goal was the glory of God.Both Enoch and Cosmas have more authority about what's true than all pagans put together.
There is no separation between Church and science. The Church has the ability and authority to set limits on science, as she did in Humani Generis. If the shape of the earth were important to our faith, the Church could have taught about it. But it is not important so she did not. St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. John Damascene all said that this was not important to our faith and the Church has always continued this teaching of the Fathers.
PS. Cosmas is a random monk and has no authority; Enoch is apocryphal and has no authority; and the condemnation of heliocentrism proves nothing about spherical earth which was a feature common to bothe geocentrism and heliocentrism.
I don't worship the devil knowingly or unknowingly. Good call..
Both Enoch and Cosmas have more authority about what's true than all pagans put together.No they don't. A pagan very well might say something true about science or math or philosophy. We test their words against Church teaching and physical reality to find out if they are true. And we need to do the exact same thing with Enoch and Cosmas. There is no reason to automatically accept anything from these sources as true.
Both Enoch and Cosmas have more authority about what's true than all pagans put together..
Everything I post is from Catholic sources. You really don't post from Catholic sources but from NASA or modern science sources. Consider the source..
.Here are some quotes about Copernicus' connection to the occult/ Kabbalah /alchemy. His writings themselves reveal quite a lot.
You said that Copernicus worshiped the devil. Provide your source.
Prove what you said or take it back, otherwise it's just as accurate to say YOU worship the devil.
.I've sourced every quote and Scripture passage, every Saint, Father or Catholic. My sources include St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Methodius, and Lactantius, and a dozen more Saints and Scriptural authorities, as well as Scripture. So, saying my sources have zero credibility is your error.
Everything you post you've made up or get it from heretics, like your buddy Truth is Transitory.
Your sources have zero credibility. Flat-earthism is you golden-calf false-god, according to St. Paul.
I think he knew what he was talking about. Yeah, check. He knew.
No they don't. A pagan very well might say something true about science or math or philosophy. We test their words against Church teaching and physical reality to find out if they are true. And we need to do the exact same thing with Enoch and Cosmas. There is no reason to automatically accept anything from these sources as true.When in doubt, the Godly authority always takes precedence. Otherwise, a choice is in favor of error. Pagans can speak truth at times, but when push comes to shove, choosing their ruminations over the Godly out of hand? No bueno. You can't possibly know that you haven't fallen for the lies Scripture warns about, that even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible. Pretty serious warning there. You don't even question yourself or your decision to take the pagan model and skip the Scriptural one You instantly disregarded Scripture's words in favor of pagan words in a time when deception is rampant. Risky business.
Everything I post is from Catholic sources. You really don't post from Catholic sources but from NASA or modern science sources. Consider the source..
I've sourced every quote and Scripture passage, every Saint, Father or Catholic. My sources include St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Methodius, and Lactantius, and a dozen more Saints and Scriptural authorities, as well as Scripture. So, saying my sources have zero credibility is your error..
.Why do you assume Lactantius was ignorant of astronomy? Because somebody said so? What exactly do they say and what proof do they provide of this? I proved Copernicus dabbled in the occult, but you have nothing on Cosmas. His writings are beautiful, respectful of Scripture, Our Lady, the liturgy, the Patriarchs and all very Catholic. Copernicus' were the opposite. Not only was he fascinated with astrology and alchemy and Kabbalah, he is said to have had a girlfriend.
Why would you quote Lactantius regarding astronomical observations when he was ignorant of astronomy?
Does his ignorance make you feel comfortable in your ignorance too?
Birds of a feather flocking together?
And Cosmas the devil worshiper too?
.Kepler was a well-known devil worshipper too and his mother was a witch.
So the thread on St. Augustine has devolved into a thread on some other guy's girlfriend.
And if he HAD a girlfriend, he certainly must have been worshiping the devil, too. Eh? What is your source?
The grapevine of jealous women with too much time on their hands?
Whoever it is they can't manage to spell Nicolaus correctly. Maybe they're gossiping about someone else.
Kepler was a well-known devil worshipper too and his mother was a witch..
He murdered Tyco Brahe.
You globers have thrown your lot in with some real winners, and against God's Word.
Doesn't seem Copernicus' friends were terribly savory either..
Copernicus had drafted a full treatise on his ideas, but he was sitting on it. Neither the church nor the public was ready to see the center of the universe anywhere but at the center of Earth. It took Rheticus' passion for the idea to get Copernicus to finish the book -- titled, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.
Copernicus entrusted the finished manuscript to Rheticus, who took it off to a publisher in Nürnberg. Rheticus left the complex typesetting, under the eye of a noted Nürnberg theologian. The actual printing was done very well, but then the theologian added an anonymous introductory letter to the text. It said that, although Earth did not really orbit the Sun, the mathematics becomes much simpler if we simply imagine that it does.
When Rheticus saw that, he was outraged. Today we find, in every copy that he ever held, a livid X slashed across that page in red crayon. And yet, that letter probably allowed Copernicus' ideas to spread and touch our world as few other ideas ever did.
As for Copernicus, he suffered a stroke before he saw the finished book. It arrived as he lay unable to speak. Just hours before he died, his friends put the title page where he could see it. And we're left to wonder: could he still comprehend? And did he know what forces he had unleashed -- with the help of a young man who clearly was aware that nothing would ever be the same again?
I'm John Lienhard at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.
In 1552, Rheticus was found guilty of raping the son of Hans Meusel, a merchant. According to Meusel, Rheticus "plied him with a strong drink, until he was inebriated; and finally did with violence overcome him and practice upon him the shameful and cruel vice of sodomy".[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Joachim_Rheticus#cite_note-9) Rheticus was consequently exiled from Leipzig for 101 years.
.https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/nicolaus-copernicus.html
So the thread on St. Augustine has devolved into a thread on some other guy's girlfriend.
And if he HAD a girlfriend, he certainly must have been worshiping the devil, too. Eh? What is your source?
The grapevine of jealous women with too much time on their hands?
Whoever it is they can't manage to spell Nicolaus correctly. Maybe they're gossiping about someone else.
When in doubt, the Godly authority always takes precedence. Otherwise, a choice is in favor of error. Pagans can speak truth at times, but when push comes to shove, choosing their ruminations over the Godly out of hand? No bueno. You can't possibly know that you haven't fallen for the lies Scripture warns about, that even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible. Pretty serious warning there. You don't even question yourself or your decision to take the pagan model and skip the Scriptural one You instantly disregarded Scripture's words in favor of pagan words in a time when deception is rampant. Risky business.Cosmas and Enoch are not authorities, godly or otherwise. They aren't bishops or Saints or Church Fathers. Enoch wasn't even a Christian, since he lived before the time of Christ. They are just some people who wrote down their ideas. There is no reason to give them precedence over anyone else.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/nicolaus-copernicus.htmlTouche, happenby.
"Copernicus, son of a Polish father and German mother, was a priest and the temporary administrator of the diocese of Frauenburg."
Well, we have a priest of the Catholic Church, hiding from his bishop with his house maid, playing astrology night games and giving book time to the all-seeing eye.
Neil says, "Nothing wrong here. I believe Copernicus over Scripture because Scripture is unclear to me."
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/nicolaus-copernicus.html.
"Copernicus, son of a Polish father and German mother, was a priest and the temporary administrator of the diocese of Frauenburg."
Well, we have a priest of the Catholic Church, hiding from his bishop with his house maid, playing astrology night games and giving book time to the all-seeing eye.
Neil says, "Nothing wrong here. I believe Copernicus over Scripture because Scripture is unclear to me."
Cosmas and Enoch are not authorities, godly or otherwise. They aren't bishops or Saints or Church Fathers. Enoch wasn't even a Christian, since he lived before the time of Christ. They are just some people who wrote down their ideas. There is no reason to give them precedence over anyone else..
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there are pagan authors who measure up better than Cosmas and Enoch.
.
Here is happenby saying, "I have no idea what quotation marks signify and so I use them wherever I please to insinuate that someone has said something when they in fact never said it."
.
Where is your material from in your previous posts in this thread, Wikipedia?
After studies in the universities of Krakow (where Pope John Paul II studied and taught), Bologna, Padua and Ferrara, he became a prominent jurist and mathematician and also practiced medicine for six years, donating his service to the poor. The polymath pioneered reform of the monetary system as it was developing in his day and did it so well that he was made an economic advisor to the government of Prussia. In what little spare time he had, he translated into Latin for posterity the Greek letters of Theophylactus.
He was too careful a theologian to muddle astronomy with astrology as did Galileo, nor did he insist unscientifically that his theory was absolute fact, a mistake which got Galileo into trouble.
.The source is a tourist attraction which publishes this LEGEND on their website to make it seem more romantic.
So the thread on St. Augustine has devolved into a thread on some other guy's girlfriend.
And if he HAD a girlfriend, he certainly must have been worshiping the devil, too. Eh? What is your source?
The grapevine of jealous women with too much time on their hands?
Whoever it is they can't manage to spell Nicolaus correctly. Maybe they're gossiping about someone else.
In De revolutionibus 1:10, mystic imagery presents the universe as a beautiful temple lit by the great, all-seeing lantern at its centre. The obvious parallel is to the neo-Platonic thinkers of Italy, where Copernicus was a student from 1496 to 1503, who were rediscovering their own versions of the wisdom of sages like Hermes Trismegistus and recalibrating the occult arts. A good deal of this work, while not strictly illicit, was certainly quite risqué, so it is a strange thing to be invoking if Copernicus really was carefully trying to avoid treading on the toes of any
theologians.http://jameshannam.com/copernicus.htm
Cosmas and Enoch are not authorities, godly or otherwise. They aren't bishops or Saints or Church Fathers. Enoch wasn't even a Christian, since he lived before the time of Christ. They are just some people who wrote down their ideas. There is no reason to give them precedence over anyone else.History says otherwise.
Very little is known about Cosmas. Many scholars think he was a Nestorian. And virtually nothing is known about the author of the apocryphal Book of Enoch, other than the time period in which he wrote. It was not the Enoch mentioned in Scripture.
Practically every heresy that has ever existed was based on misinterpreting Scripture so I am not going to automatically accept claims just because there are some Scripture quotes thrown into them. I test everything against Church teaching and physical reality. This is not a disregard for Scripture but basic prudence.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there are pagan authors who measure up better than Cosmas and Enoch.
Wow! The link she gave, other than the short direct quote, did not say anything like what she implied was there. There was nothing in that article to back up her claims about sorcery or anything else. It was very positive about him:Copernicus' life is everywhere on the Internet and the sites that support the globe leave the bad stuff out. Neutral sites don't. So, whatever you think you found is incomplete.
I thought this was especially important:
The source is a tourist attraction which publishes this LEGEND on their website to make it seem more romantic..
https://gotykhouse.eu/en/the-legend-of-anne-schilling/ (https://gotykhouse.eu/en/the-legend-of-anne-schilling/)
It does not even pretend to be history. But apparently it does not matter if there is no good reason to think it is true if it blackens the name of Copernicus.