Author Topic: The Church censors flat earth criticism (Read 1615 times)

hismajesty · « **on:** October 13, 2018, 02:47:46 PM »

I am reading a book called "Burned alive; Giordano Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition" by Alberto Martinez. The author is strongly anti catholic and a globe believer.

In it the author makes a most remarkable statment:

"In 1620 the Index censored eleven sentences in Copernicus's book. Catholics could now read it making the required corrections. ... First the Index censored the passage in the Preface where Copernicus criticized Lactantius for not knowing mathematics and being wrong about the Earth's shape. "

Yes, you read that correctly.

The text of that censoring is available in "The Ponticial decrees against the Doctrine of the Earths movement and the Ultramontane defence of them" By Rev. William Roberts.

Found here http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Go to page 62. It is latin. But not hard to understand.

Here is the text: In præfatione circa finem.—Ibi si fortasse dele omnia, usque ad verba,
hi nostri labores; et sic accommoda, coeterum hi nostri labores.

The text they are talking about can be found here:
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302d/Fall_2011/Full%20text%20-%20Nicholas%20Copernicus,%20_De%20Revolutionibus%20%28On%20the%20Revolutions%29,_%201.pdf

Here is the relevant part:

"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although
completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture
to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I
disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. 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"

You can see that there is nothing in it about mathematics. But the only topic is the spherical earth.
If you attack the defence of Gods creation... you deserve censorship...

So much for the Church believing in the globe in the middle ages and beyond. This is 1620 and the Church is defending the Truth.

This is a remarkable discovery and I hope my fellow flat earthers appreciate it.

Jaynek · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2018, 04:24:44 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 02:47:46 PM

The text of that censoring is available in "The Ponticial decrees against the Doctrine of the Earths movement and the Ultramontane defence of them" By Rev. William Roberts.

Found here http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Go to page 62. It is latin. But not hard to understand.

Here is the text: In præfatione circa finem.—Ibi si fortasse dele omnia, usque ad verba,
hi nostri labores; et sic accommoda, coeterum hi nostri labores.

And if you look at the text on page 62 that precedes the bit you quoted, you will see it contains the phrase principia de situ et motu terreni globi which translates "principles concerning the position and movement of the terrestial globe." (The context is a statement that Copernicus accepts principles concerning the position and movement of the earth that are repugnant to Sacred Scripture according to its true interpretation by the Church.)

The reason that the Congregation of the Index refers to the earth as a terrenus globus in this docuмent is because they, like all educated Catholics of the time, believed that the earth is a globe. If they had wished to object to Copernicus believing in a spherical earth, they would have said something like principia de situ et motu et forma terreni "principles concerning the position, movement, and shape of the earth."

There is no reason to assume that they wanted the disparaging comments regarding Lactantius removed because it was a criticism of flat earth. That is highly unlikely since they themselves thought the earth was a sphere. This had been taught in Catholic universities for centuries and they referred to it in this very docuмent. Possibly they objected to the disrespectful tone Copernicus used toward a Father of the Church.

hismajesty · « **Reply #2 on:** October 14, 2018, 02:07:41 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 13, 2018, 04:24:44 PM

Possibly they objected to the disrespectful tone Copernicus used toward a Father of the Church.

That's highly unlikely. The index's principle role was regarding doctrine.

Also, all the other censorship is concerning the earth and aspects concerning it.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2018, 11:29:24 AM »

I don't know what hismajesty's proposition is without some more context, so I cannot comment.

However, I will comment on Copernicus's letter he posted:

Copernicus shows himself to be a practitioner of the dark arts by his adoration of the mystery religion and its idea that they can make one more "godlike."

This is the central deception of the mystery religions and the lie told to Eve that they could become as gods.

Also, Copernicus quotes Ptolemy's initial proposition nearly verbatim and makes it his own. Namely, that earth must be a globe simply because he thinks a sphere is mathematically "perfect" and NOT because of any actual evidence at all.

Jaynek · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2018, 11:38:27 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 14, 2018, 02:07:41 AM

That's highly unlikely. The index's principle role was regarding doctrine.

The docuмent itself does not give the reason for removing the reference to Lactatianus's belief in flat earth, so we are speculating. You are here implying that we can deduce the reason based on flat earth being a matter of doctrine. In syllogism form, your argument would be:

The Index removed a passage containing a disagreement with flat earth.
The Index deals with doctrine.
The flat earth is a doctrine.
Therefore the reason for the removal of the passage is that it contains a disagreement with flat earth.

In your first post, however, you were trying to show this removal as evidence that the shape of the earth must be a matter of doctrine. In syllogism form:

The Index removed a passage because it contained a disagreement with flat earth.
The Index deals with doctrine.
Therefore flat earth is a doctrine.

You are using the same statement as both a proposition and a conclusion, i.e. the fallacy of petitio principii or circular reasoning. You have to assume the thing that you are trying to prove.

There is, in fact, no basis for considering this docuмent as evidence that the Congregation of the Index considered flat earth a doctrine. It is, rather, evidence for the contrary, since they use the expression terrenus globus to refer to the earth.

You have repeatedly in other threads referred to belief in a spherical earth as a heresy. There is no justification for doing this. There is no magisterial teaching that says the earth is flat. Even in the Patristic period, the only time in history when significant numbers of educated Christian authors believed the earth to be flat, none of the Fathers taught that this was a matter of faith.

On the contrary, we have the statement of St. John Damascene, himself a Church Father, writing in An Exposition of Orthodox Faith, a summary of the Faith expounded by those who went before him:

"Further, some hold that the earth is in the form of a sphere, others that it is in that of a cone. At all events it is much smaller than the heaven, and suspended almost like a point in its midst. And it will pass away and be changed." (Book II Ch 10) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm

This is, in context, a completely clear statement from a Church Father that believing in a spherical earth is compatible with orthodox faith and no flat earther here has ever shown authoritative Catholic teaching otherwise. There is no de fide teaching and Christians are free to believe as we wish concerning the shape of the earth.

Stanley N · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2018, 01:27:22 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 02:47:46 PM

"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although
completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture
to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I
disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. 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"

You can see that there is nothing in it about mathematics. But the only topic is the spherical earth.
If you attack the defence of Gods creation... you deserve censorship...

I think it would be more clear if you looked at the original. Here is the text according to wikisource-Latin:

Quote

Si fortasse erunt ματαιόλογοι, qui cuм omnium Mathematum ignari sint, tamen de illis indicium sibi sumunt, propter aliquem locuм scripturæ, male ad suum propositum detortum, ausi fuerint meum hoc institutum reprehendere ас insectari: illos nihil moror, adeo ut etiam illorum iudicium tanquam temerarium contemnam. Non enim obscurum est Lactantium, celebrem alioqui scriptorem, sed Mathematicuм parum, admodum pueriliter de forma terræ loqui, cuм deridet eos, qui terram globi formam habere prodiderunt. Itaque non debet mirum videri studiosis, si qui tales nos etiam ridebunt. Mathemata mathematicis scribuntur, quibus & hi nostri labores, si me non fallit opinio, videbuntur etiam Reipublicæ ecclesiasticæ conducere aliquid...

The correction says to replace this with

Quote

Coeterum hi nostri labores, si me non fallit opinio, videbuntur etiam Reipublicæ ecclesiasticæ conducere aliquid...

First you can see that the word translated "Astronomer" in your English version looks a lot like Mathematician. Perhaps that's why your anti-Catholic source referred to mathematics in this section?

Second, the overall sense of the passage is that people may falsely twist Scripture to criticize this work, and non-Astronomers should stay out of it (with Lactantius as an example). Then 75 years after Copernicus' work was published, the Index decides this passage should be edited. The Index doesn't give a specific reason, but as this was shortly after Galileo, doesn't it seem likely the reason is the claim about Scripture?

happenby · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2018, 04:31:38 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 13, 2018, 04:24:44 PM

And if you look at the text on page 62 that precedes the bit you quoted, you will see it contains the phrase principia de situ et motu terreni globi which translates "principles concerning the position and movement of the terrestial globe." (The context is a statement that Copernicus accepts principles concerning the position and movement of the earth that are repugnant to Sacred Scripture according to its true interpretation by the Church.)

The reason that the Congregation of the Index refers to the earth as a terrenus globus in this docuмent is because they, like all educated Catholics of the time, believed that the earth is a globe. If they had wished to object to Copernicus believing in a spherical earth, they would have said something like principia de situ et motu et forma terreni "principles concerning the position, movement, and shape of the earth."

There is no reason to assume that they wanted the disparaging comments regarding Lactantius removed because it was a criticism of flat earth. That is highly unlikely since they themselves thought the earth was a sphere. This had been taught in Catholic universities for centuries and they referred to it in this very docuмent. Possibly they objected to the disrespectful tone Copernicus used toward a Father of the Church.

Just to be clear... Your so called "context" is pretext. The heart of what Copernicus said that was actually condemned by the Church is:

"Why Copernicus was condemned: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."
The Church condemned Copernicus for saying Lactantius speaks childishly about the earth's shape when Lactanctius mocks those who think the earth is a globe. This says absolutely nothing that the Church thought the earth was a globe, or recognized the earth is a globe, but that a condemnation was made against Copernicus for belittling Lactantius' position that earth is flat. In other words, the Church condemned Copernicus because he belittled the flat earth.
Oh, and by the way: Terrenus globus does not mean earth is a globe. Terrenus means earthly. And globus means "group". Check out google translate for more information.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=la#la/en/globus
The Douay calls earth a "bundle" or "group" because heaven and earth are joined together. Earth is in the center, heaven above and hell below, the globus cruciger so often talked about in these threads proving that heaven, hell and earth comprise the globus (group).

Jaynek · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2018, 06:33:50 PM »

Quote from: happenby on October 14, 2018, 04:31:38 PM

Just to be clear... Your so called "context" is pretext. The heart of what Copernicus said that was actually condemned by the Church is:

"Why Copernicus was condemned: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."
The Church condemned Copernicus for saying Lactantius speaks childishly about the earth's shape when Lactanctius mocks those who think the earth is a globe. This says absolutely nothing that the Church thought the earth was a globe, or recognized the earth is a globe, but that a condemnation was made against Copernicus for belittling Lactantius' position that earth is flat. In other words, the Church condemned Copernicus because he belittled the flat earth.
in it

The OP quoted one sentence out of the 1620 decree giving permission to publish De Revolutionbus on condition that nine specific corrections and changes were made. This sentence described one of the required corrections. This decree was not a condemnation of Copernicus.

Wikipedia gives the historical background:

Quote

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."^[144] The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis.^[145] The corrections were made based largely on work by Ingoli.^[139]On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.^[h] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

The opening paragraph of the decree (not quoted in the OP) gives the reasoning for the earlier censure of Copernicus: The original version of De Revolutionibus was prohibited because in it Copernicus showed that he accepted as true, not merely hypothetically, principles concerning the position and movement of the earth that were contrary to the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture. However, since there were many useful things in the book, the Index wished to give it permission for publishing with corrections for locis in quibus non ex hypothesi sed asserendo de situ et motu terræ disputat.("places in which he discusses the location and motion of the earth, not hypothetically but as an assertion")

The Congregation, therefore, thought that, in the passage containing the reference to flat earth, Copernicus was treating his ideas as truth rather than a hypothesis. We can see they are right in the sentences immediately preceding the mention of Lactantius: "Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded." It was not because Copernicus belittled flat earth. On the contrary, it was for treating his theory as if it were an established truth like the earth being a sphere.

It is this same opening paragraph of the decree that uses the expression terrenus globus to refer to the earth, showing that its authors believed the earth was a sphere.

Quote from: happenby on October 14, 2018, 04:31:38 PM

Oh, and by the way: Terrenus globus does not mean earth is a globe. Terrenus means earthly. And globus means "group". Check out google translate for more information.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=la#la/en/globus
The Douay calls earth a "bundle" or "group" because heaven and earth are joined together. Earth is in the center, heaven above and hell below, the globus cruciger so often talked about in these threads proving that heaven, hell and earth comprise the globus (group).

The literal meaning of globus is globe, ball, or sphere. It is occasionally used figuratively (usually in poetry) to mean a group. The Google translate link you cited gives possible translations in order of frequency, with the back translations, also in order of frequency. The word globus rarely means group and the concept of group is rarely expressed by globus. In this context, any competent human translator would use "terrestrial globe" or a similar expression.

Translations of

globus

noun
	globe	globus, sphaera, orbis terrarum, sphera, tellus, orbis terrae
	ball	pila, globus, sphaera, globulus, sphera, glomus

	sphere	sphaera, sphera, globus, regio, provincia, area

	troop	turma, agmen, caterva, manus, praesidium, globus

	group	classis, corona, circulus, circlus, turba, globus

Markus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2018, 07:35:45 PM »

Did any of the Fathers believe the earth was flat? Since we know the Fathers are a reliable source for interpreting scripture, I am sure the vast majority of the Fathers would have held the earth to be flat if so many traditionalists today also believe in flat earth-ism.

Yes, I'm trying to assume good faith.

happenby · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2018, 07:57:03 PM »

Quote from: Markus on October 14, 2018, 07:35:45 PM

Did any of the Fathers believe the earth was flat? Since we know the Fathers are a reliable source for interpreting scripture, I am sure the vast majority of the Fathers would have held the earth to be flat if so many traditionalists today also believe in flat earth-ism.

Yes, I'm trying to assume good faith.

Yes, most, if not all of the Church Fathers believed the earth to be flat BECAUSE their argument is, it is Scriptural. St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, Lactanctius, Bishop Sevarian of Gabala, Cosmas, Origen, St. Augustine, and many others taught that earth is flat and stationary using Scripture. These Fathers go to great lengths to show how this is expressed in Scripture and several argued against the pagans responsible for fantastical moving globe. No surprise, the moving globe is a NASA and modern science promotion that caters to the moon hoax lies, evolution and atheism. We know the Church condemned Heliocentrism "all together" as heresy, so it is wrong for any Catholic to try to make a case for the globe, moving or otherwise. But, not only is flat earth backed by tradition from a Scriptural standpoint, it is sensible and scientifically based, when the globe remains a heap of contradictions.

Jaynek · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:20:05 PM »

Quote from: Markus on October 14, 2018, 07:35:45 PM

Did any of the Fathers believe the earth was flat? Since we know the Fathers are a reliable source for interpreting scripture, I am sure the vast majority of the Fathers would have held the earth to be flat if so many traditionalists today also believe in flat earth-ism.

Yes, I'm trying to assume good faith.

Some of the Fathers believed in flat earth, but the flat earth proponents exaggerate how common it was. For example, they misinterpret some passages as being in support of flat earth that are not actually saying that. For another example, in the above post by happenby, she places Cosmas in her list of Fathers, but he is not one.

I think the Wikipedia list of Fathers supporting flat earth is more reliable than flat earther sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The more useful writings of the Fathers on the subject put it in its proper perspective. For example, this passage by St. Basil in the Hexameron presents it well:

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself while the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32019.htm

St. Basil cautions against reading meanings into Scripture about the shape of the earth, saying it is a vanity that will not lead to the edification of our souls.

happenby · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 14, 2018, 06:33:50 PM

The OP quoted one sentence out of the 1620 decree giving permission to publish De Revolutionbus on condition that nine specific corrections and changes were made. This sentence described one of the required corrections. This decree was not a condemnation of Copernicus.

Making a correction is tantamount to a condemnation because it shows the Church favored the flat geocentric earth, even if She was willing to tolerate opinions on the matter. Reading Copernicus one comes away convinced he is buried in occult lies he prefers to Christianity and tradition.

Wikipedia gives the historical background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

The opening paragraph of the decree (not quoted in the OP) gives the reasoning for the earlier censure of Copernicus: The original version of De Revolutionibus was prohibited because in it Copernicus showed that he accepted as true, not merely hypothetically, principles concerning the position and movement of the earth that were contrary to the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture. However, since there were many useful things in the book, the Index wished to give it permission for publishing with corrections for locis in quibus non ex hypothesi sed asserendo de situ et motu terræ disputat.("places in which he discusses the location and motion of the earth, not hypothetically but as an assertion")

The Congregation, therefore, thought that, in the passage containing the reference to flat earth, Copernicus was treating his ideas as truth rather than a hypothesis. We can see they are right in the sentences immediately preceding the mention of Lactantius: "Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded." It was not because Copernicus belittled flat earth. On the contrary, it was for treating his theory as if it were an established truth like the earth being a sphere.

This* shows that the Church favored the geocentric flat earth. She wasn't about to tolerate false ideas to be taught as certain when they weren't, which interestingly, the Heliocentric model has since become a certainty in most people's mind, against the recommendation of the Church. How telling.

It is this same opening paragraph of the decree that uses the expression terrenus globus to refer to the earth, showing that its authors believed the earth was a sphere.
The literal meaning of globus is globe, ball, or sphere. It is occasionally used figuratively (usually in poetry) to mean a group. The Google translate link you cited gives possible translations in order of frequency, with the back translations, also in order of frequency. The word globus rarely means group and the concept of group is rarely expressed by globus. In this context, any competent human translator would use "terrestrial globe" or a similar expression.

Translations of
globus

noun
globe globus, sphaera, orbis terrarum, sphera, tellus, orbis terrae
ball pila, globus, sphaera, globulus, sphera, glomus
sphere sphaera, sphera, globus, regio, provincia, area
troop turma, agmen, caterva, manus, praesidium, globus
group classis, corona, circulus, circlus, turba, globus
Well, the subject here is what globus means within this context, not to include every single possibility listed or we'd never get anywhere. It just so happens the first meaning listed on Google translate is 'group', as shown in the link I provided, and interestingly, 'group' is the same meaning that the Douay uses. Attempting to save a dying idea by clouding the issue with non-sequitur details and skirt the real issue in favor of what is possible all the while the Church, science, sensibility and our senses have been teaching the opposite, is pretty brazen. Earth is not a globe and the people behind the ba'al earth are pagan monsters attempting to hijack God's creation and recreate it in Satan's image, using a time honored Indoctrination identical to the Satanic mystery religions in existence since Enoch's time. And the world today is paying BILLIONS of $$$ for them to continue the lies. Follow the money, works every time.

Jaynek · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:33:28 PM »

The Church did not favour flat geocentric earth. The cosmology taught in Catholic universities, believed by Saints, and assumed in Church docuмents was spherical geocentric earth. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Flat earthers like happenby refuse to acknowledge this evidence.

Quote

happenby: Well, the subject here is what globus means within this context, not to include every single possibility listed or we'd never get anywhere. It just so happens the first meaning listed on Google translate is 'group', as shown in the link I provided, and interestingly, 'group' is the same meaning that the Douay uses.

You had Google translate globus without any context at all, so how could it tell us the best meaning in the passage in question?

There very well may be a place where the Douay translates globus as group, but that is no reason to think it is a good translation here. I have looked at various books that translate that passage and they all say something like "terrestial globe".

happenby · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:40:02 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 14, 2018, 08:20:05 PM

Some of the Fathers believed in flat earth, but the flat earth proponents exaggerate how common it was. For example, they misinterpret some passages as being in support of flat earth that are not actually saying that. For another example, in the above post by happenby, she places Cosmas in her list of Fathers, but he is not one.

I think the Wikipedia list of Fathers supporting flat earth is more reliable than flat earther sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The more useful writings of the Fathers on the subject put it in its proper perspective. For example, this passage by St. Basil in the Hexameron presents it well:

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself while the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32019.htm

St. Basil cautions against reading meanings into Scripture about the shape of the earth, saying it is a vanity that will not lead to the edification of our souls.

St. Basil was making a point about keeping people on track for what was important at the time. He was not trying to debunk the truth, nor suggest that it didn't matter whether we believe in the earth or globe. After all, suggesting he didn't really care is ridiculous because we all know it really does matter: One is true, the other isn't. It just so happens that St. Basil showed his flat earth favoritism elsewhere.
St Basil speaks here of the firmament in regard to the tabernacle: "In the midst of the covering and veil, where the priests were allowed to enter, was situated the altar of incense, the symbol of the earth placed in the middle of this universe; and from it came the fumes of incense." (The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle, Bk V, Ch VI; Clement of Rome, Stromata, Bk V)
St. Basil was a full on flat earther and influenced Cosmas' book Christian Topography 200 years later by providing the knowledge of the typology regarding the Church, the tabernacle and the earth. Thank you St. Basil!

happenby · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:42:47 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 14, 2018, 08:33:28 PM

The Church did not favour flat geocentric earth. The cosmology taught in Catholic universities, believed by Saints, and assumed in Church docuмents was spherical geocentric earth. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Flat earthers like happenby refuse to acknowledge this evidence.

Well, now, at least since St. Basil. Oops, no wait, St. Jerome. Oh, wait, no...if we're going to do it right, God's Church has always favored flat earth geocentrism and has developed a teaching on the typology relating Christ with the Church, the tabernacle, the liturgy, and the earth. For those interested.

Author Topic: The Church censors flat earth criticism (Read 1615 times)

hismajesty

The Church censors flat earth criticism

Jaynek

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

hismajesty

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Smedley Butler

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Jaynek

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Stanley N

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

happenby

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Jaynek

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Markus

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

happenby

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Jaynek

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

happenby

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

Jaynek

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

happenby

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism

happenby

Re: The Church censors flat earth criticism