Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]

Author Topic: Round Earth reference?  (Read 149100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12560
  • Reputation: +7976/-2468
  • Gender: Male
Re: Round Earth reference?
« Reply #195 on: March 02, 2025, 04:50:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • :facepalm:  Saying St Thomas isn’t infallible isn’t a jab at him.  Anymore than saying an elephant can’t fly isn’t a criticism of an elephant's lack of wings.  It’s simply stating a fact.  
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #196 on: March 02, 2025, 04:59:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 02, 2025, 04:50:43 PM
    :facepalm:  Saying St Thomas isn’t infallible isn’t a jab at him.  Anymore than saying an elephant can’t fly isn’t a criticism of an elephant's lack of wings.  It’s simply stating a fact. 
    but in context it implies he is wrong. he wasnt. because he wasnt a globe earther
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47051
    • Reputation: +27880/-5192
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #197 on: March 02, 2025, 05:49:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Predestination2 on March 02, 2025, 04:59:54 PM
    but in context it implies he is wrong. he wasnt. because he wasnt a globe earther

    So?  Theologians have since discovered over 40 errors in the works of St. Thomas.  St. Thomas also wasn't an Immaculate Conceptionist ... and we needed Duns Scotus to correct him on that issue, for which I'm sure St. Thomas is eternally grateful.

    In either case, citing St. Thomas one way or another on the shape of the earth has very little weight or authority, since it's not really a theological question directly, and perhaps the only inference one might draw from it theologically would be what St. Thomas believed Sacred Scripture taught or may have taught.

    I find the teachings of the Church Fathers much more relevant in terms of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and having for a long time taken it for granted that many Church Fathers believed in a ball earth, having actually studied what they wrote, I have now come to the opposite conclusion, namely, that they were almost unanimously Flat Earthers.  Various "interpreters" (including Dr. Sungenis) are clearly imposing the NASA ball model onto any mention of the word "sphere" by the Fathers even in cases where they were CLEARLY referring to the shape of the entire world, including the firmament, rather than the ground we walk on.  I've cited numerous cases where this is demonstrably the case.
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #198 on: March 02, 2025, 06:26:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 02, 2025, 05:49:02 PM
    So?  Theologians have since discovered over 40 errors in the works of St. Thomas.  St. Thomas also wasn't an Immaculate Conceptionist ... and we needed Duns Scotus to correct him on that issue, for which I'm sure St. Thomas is eternally grateful.

    In either case, citing St. Thomas one way or another on the shape of the earth has very little weight or authority, since it's not really a theological question directly, and perhaps the only inference one might draw from it theologically would be what St. Thomas believed Sacred Scripture taught or may have taught.

    I find the teachings of the Church Fathers much more relevant in terms of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and having for a long time taken it for granted that many Church Fathers believed in a ball earth, having actually studied what they wrote, I have now come to the opposite conclusion, namely, that they were almost unanimously Flat Earthers.  Various "interpreters" (including Dr. Sungenis) are clearly imposing the NASA ball model onto any mention of the word "sphere" by the Fathers even in cases where they were CLEARLY referring to the shape of the entire world, including the firmament, rather than the ground we walk on.  I've cited numerous cases where this is demonstrably the case.
    You are right on citing st thomas about flat earth but the whole reason i was so aggressive about point 4 was that i was worried it would devolve into "St Thomas Denied the Immaculate Conception" and yep - it did


    I would advise you to read Garrigou lagrange in reality a synthesis of thomistic thought who proved that st thomas before and after the summa stated that Our Lady was in fact immaculately conceived. but even in the summa and around that time in his life we can see that, as proven by John of St Thomas and Billuart - St Thomas  was not denying The Immaculate conception but stating that she retained the DEBITUM (not original sin) and, while it was cleansed immediately in the order of time, whenever he says the words "after" regarding our Lady's Conception he is only of the order of nature. 


    also read this -
    https://www.christianbwagner.com/post/st-thomas-doctor-of-the-immaculate-conception#:~:text=Thomas's%20mariology%2C%20there%20has%20always,affirmation%20to%20doubt%20to%20affirmation).

    even fr Pohle talks about this in his dogmatics, and fr pohle is Infamous for being Anti thomstic, especiallly regarding predestination.


    In conclusion here is what st thomas was saying -


    Did Our Lady have the Stain of Original Sin - NO
    Did Our Lady have the Debitum - YES

    When was Our Lady cleansed of the Debitum:
    In the order of time - At Conception
    In the order of nature - After Conception

    Did St Thomas deny the Immaculate conception - NO

    God Bless
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47051
    • Reputation: +27880/-5192
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #199 on: March 02, 2025, 06:40:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Predestination2 on March 02, 2025, 06:26:30 PM
    You are right on citing st thomas about flat earth but the whole reason i was so aggressive about point 4 was that i was worried it would devolve into "St Thomas Denied the Immaculate Conception" and yep - it did


    I would advise you to read Garrigou lagrange in reality a synthesis of thomistic thought who proved that st thomas before and after the summa stated that Our Lady was in fact immaculately conceived. but even in the summa and around that time in his life we can see that, as proven by John of St Thomas and Billuart - St Thomas  was not denying The Immaculate conception but stating that she retained the DEBITUM (not original sin) and, while it was cleansed immediately in the order of time, whenever he says the words "after" regarding our Lady's Conception he is only of the order of nature.

    Wrong, that was just a weak attempt to explain it away by people just like you who exaggerate the authority of St. Thomas.

    St. Thomas got it wrong.  Period.  But then so did most others, and it wasn't until Scotus came along that he gave the necessary theological explanation for it.

    Your "aggressiveness" reflects a weak faith where you'd be scandalize by error on the part of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Are you a Hewkonian, because I had this same debate with Father Hewko years ago at seminary, where he was scandalized by the thought St. Thomas was anything but an infallible rule of faith ... while of course at the same time rejecting the doctrinal authority of the Vicar of Christ.
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #200 on: March 02, 2025, 06:45:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 02, 2025, 06:40:47 PM
    Wrong, that was just a weak attempt to explain it away by people just like you who exaggerate the authority of St. Thomas.

    St. Thomas got it wrong.  Period.  But then so did most others, and it wasn't until Scotus came along that he gave the necessary theological explanation for it.

    Your "aggressiveness" reflects a weak faith where you'd be scandalize by error on the part of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Are you a Hewkonian, because I had this same debate with Father Hewko years ago at seminary, where he was scandalized by the thought St. Thomas was anything but an infallible rule of faith ... while of course at the same time rejecting the doctrinal authority of the Vicar of Christ.


    ok im sorry

    st thomas isnt an infallible rule of faith

    but the fact is, even if he was wrong in the summa, which can be debated garrigou proves that he later beleived in the IC
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #201 on: March 02, 2025, 06:47:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 02, 2025, 05:49:02 PM
    Theologians have since discovered over 40 errors in the works of St. Thomas.
    did you get that from the dimonds? not a jab a genuine question because i also heard something like that from them
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #202 on: March 02, 2025, 06:48:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • No

    im a sede
    Logged

    Offline Predestination2

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 695
    • Reputation: +141/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Round Earth reference?
    « Reply #203 on: March 02, 2025, 06:51:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • im not going to post any more today to get my post per day count down, so if you reply dont expect a respense until tomorrow
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
    « previous next »