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.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.)
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.
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.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:
"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy althoughI think it would be more clear if you looked at the original. Here is the text according to wikisource-Latin (https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina:Nicolai_Copernici_torinensis_De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium.djvu/8):
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...
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...
Coeterum hi nostri labores, si me non fallit opinio, videbuntur etiam Reipublicæ ecclesiasticæ conducere aliquid...
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.)Just to be clear... Your so called "context" is pretext. The heart of what Copernicus said that was actually condemned by the Church is:
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: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.
"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
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair), the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_the_Index) issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium) 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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#cite_note-archive48-151) The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis.[145] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#cite_note-152) The corrections were made based largely on work by Ingoli.[139]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#cite_note-Finocchiaro_2010,_p._72-146)On the orders of Pope Paul V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_V), Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#cite_note-153) The corrections to De revolutionibus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium), which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.
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.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.
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).
| 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 | |
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, 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.
Yes, I'm trying to assume good faith.
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.
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 (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 ofglobusWell, 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.
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
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?
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.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.
I think the Wikipedia list of Fathers supporting flat earth is more reliable than flat earther sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth (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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) of the universe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm), that the servant of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), Moses (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10596a.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)? 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm)? 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), 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 (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.
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.
St. Basil was a full on flat earther..No knowledgeable person considers St. Basil to have been a flat earther. This illustrates why one should not use flat earther sources on which Church Fathers held that position.
No knowledgeable person considers St. Basil to have been a flat earther. This illustrates why one should not use flat earther sources on which Church Fathers held that position.Seems you are without information. Flat earth typology relating the earth to the tabernacle continued throughout the centuries by the Fathers and St. Basil's quote assures us he believed the same.
Andrew Dickson White has been discredited as a historian. He distorted facts in order to support his thesis that bad backward religion was in conflict with good progressive science.Not even. ADW is well known and lauded for his historical accuracy. His sources are spot on and no one has ever taken issue with them. What our Protestant ADW does distort, is the fact that earth is flat, and he spends a good portion of his efforts to discredit the Fathers of the Catholic Church using their actual quotes, in order to make them look stupid for believing earth is flat. It's his paraphrasing, not his sources that are distortions.
Saying that Jerusalem is the center of the world is not the same a believing the earth is flat. Both Dante and Sir John de Mandeville thought the earth was a sphere.
The veil St. Basil speaks of is the firmament, a tell-tale staple in the geocentric flat earth and otherwise excluded in the globe models, but Basil's statement also reveals his understanding of the typology regarding the veil of the tabernacle and earth being a macrocosm of the house of God as Basil, Cosmas and Severian teach, earth is like a two story house with heaven being the upper story, the firmament dividing as a veil with the earth below that.St. Basil did not make the statement that you are attributing to him. It was by Clement of Alexandria, the actual author of The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle. Although using that quote as a support for flat earth doesn't make much sense whoever said it.
St. Basil did not make the statement that you are attributing to him. It was by Clement of Alexandria, the actual author of The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle. Although using that quote as a support for flat earth doesn't make much sense whoever said it.Both believed the same thing, (as all the Fathers did) and both are quoting that same belief. The language of the Fathers who taught flat earth teach the literal interpretation of Scripture never to describe a globe. Their concepts and phrasing are all necessarily flat earth revealing and often flat out deny the possibility of earth being a globe. But then, the indoctrinated never see through the veil because they do not listen to the Fathers, Scripture or consider the Church's previous actions against the pagan sorcerers promoting the globe, but prefer the modern version of global atheism and evolution that NASA promotes.
https://biblehub.com/library/clement/the_stromata_or_miscellanies/chapter_vi_the_mystic_meaning_of.htm (https://biblehub.com/library/clement/the_stromata_or_miscellanies/chapter_vi_the_mystic_meaning_of.htm)
If Jerusalem is at the center of the earth and earth is a globe, then Jerusalem is at the core of a molten iron ball earth along with modern placement of hell. Even to the most ignorant of people it becomes obvious that Jerusalem being at the center of the world means earth cannot possibly be a globe.
Both believed the same thing, (as all the Fathers did) and both are quoting that same belief.You have not yet given any evidence to support your assertion that St. Basil believed this.
Here is the explanation of what Dante meant when he said that Jerusalem was the centre of the earth.Ok, so some guy named David Bressan comes along and forwards his own personal opinion and you take it as gospel? Just so that we have David Bressan against Wikipedia? Who cares about Bressan and Dante anyway? It isn't as though Dante was the only one listed who believed Jerusalem is at the center of the world because we know several others to include Ezekiel and St. Jerome who say its true. There's no need to try to dig up minutia written by menials in order to discredit the Fathers and Scripture. Who does that?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2016/07/18/the-geological-features-that-inspired-hell-in-dantes-divine-comedy/#14e50a337279 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2016/07/18/the-geological-features-that-inspired-hell-in-dantes-divine-comedy/#14e50a337279)
Dante imagined Hell like an inverted cone, with its circles gradually becoming smaller nearer to Earth's core. Each circle was dedicated to a sin and the sin's related punishment. This image is based on calculations of Greek philosophers, like Eratosthenes of Cyrene or Claudius Ptolemy, who argued that Earth is a sphere. Hell, as part of earth, would have to be cone-shaped. Dante even gives an exact value of Earth's radius of 3,250 miles (it's actually 3,959 miles).
The cone, according to Dante, formed when Lucifer, the fallen angel, fell to Earth. The impact of the Fall was so great that it even reshaped Earth's surface. Continents were uplifted on the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere lowered and was covered by the sea (Dante didn't know about Australia and Antarctica).
In Dante's writing, only Mount Purgatory can be found in the south. Purgatory, together with the holy city of Jerusalem, forms an axis passing through Earth, with Lucifer's belly as center of Earth and the universe. This is an allegoric image, showing Lucifer is damned as far as possible away from the sun and the divine light.
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.
Ok, so some guy named David Bressan comes along and forwards his own personal opinion and you take it as gospel? Just so that we have David Bressan against Wikipedia? Who cares about Bressan and Dante anyway? It isn't as though Dante was the only one listed who believed Jerusalem is at the center of the world because we know several others to include Ezekiel and St. Jerome who say its true. There's no need to try to dig up minutia written by menials in order to discredit the Fathers and Scripture. Who does that?
Well, I am going to take St. Basil's words to heart and treat this topic as the way he says to. I should not be posting on this and giving this unedifying topic an appearance of importance that it does not deserve.
I have seen for myself how unedifying and divisive it is. While taking my most recent break from this topic, I had my first encounter with Smedley Butler on a topic on which we agreed. As I recall, it was something about family and women. More than the details of the discussion, I remember how it felt to finally interact with him as a my fellow Catholic for the first time after months of hostility and frustration. I want to be at peace with my fellow Catholics, not embroiled in pointless controversies.
God bless you all.
I will answer here (in green font) since it is the largest number of your contentions and since you aren't really addressing any issues anyway. Just in order to answer for anyone wondering.
The David Bressan article was an accurate summary of Dante's views as described in the Divine Comedy which I knew because I have read it. You cited Dante as an example of a person you identified as flat earther merely because he mentioned Jerusalem being the centre of the earth. The fact that he believed the earth is a sphere shows that one cannot equate "Jerusalem is the centre" with "the earth is flat" as you have been doing. Some people, like Dante, while believing the physical shape of the entire earth was a sphere, called Jerusalem the centre because it was at the centre of the three known continents Europe, Asia, and Africa. They thought it was the centre of the land mass ("land" is also terra in Latin) on the spherical earth. You need more evidence than a mention of Jerusalem as centre to establish a person as a flat earther.
The Wiki article was also an accurate summary of Dante. Which means we have Bressan against Wiki. But I've already shown that. You're dodging the main point that many believed earth is flat with Jerusalem in the middle, and some people include Dante to be a Jerusalem-center guy even if Bressan doesn't. Perhaps, like you, it isn't in him to see the point of what is being said. Ultimately, it is impossible for earth to be a ball with Jerusalem in the center, so that teaching most certainly does point to the obvious: that earth is a plane rather than a ball, with Jerusalem in the center. You say "they" thought it was the center of some land mass at the time. Nothing whatsoever even remotely suggests it was conjecture, since St. Jerome insisted on us knowing it was a reality based in Scripture and the Church taught the same for over a 1000 years. In case you forgot, St. Jerome is a biblical scholar of the highest order and Bressan is nobody. Seems your priorities are dictated by modern pagan science before Godly teachers. But that is the reason why it matters to get to the heart of what is being said, as well as who you believe.
"Who discredits the Fathers and Scripture?" you ask. You do, every time you twist their words to make them fit the theory you impose on them. You do when you ignore St. Basil teaching "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? "
I do not twist anyone's words as the Fathers say them clearly enough to be understood. Not only that, they are in agreement and all talk about earth in the same way. I def copy and pasted wrong since St. Clement was indeed responsible for that one quote you pointed out and we already know he was a flat earther. But having read St. Basil, and knowing he is also a flat earther, my point stands correct, and here saint and quote are provided (below). You used one lone quote to suggest Basil was not a flat earther, in order to dismiss reaching the truth in favor of what you prefer to believe. St. Basil shows here that he believed and taught flat earth and you'd do well to read the Saint's writings before you contradict him and miss his point. The source for Basil isThe HexaemeronHomily III
by St. Basil the Great
4. "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters front the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Before laying hold of the meaning of Scripture let us try to meet objections from other quarters. We are asked how, if the firmament is a spherical body, as it appears to the eye, its convex circuмference can contain the water which flows and circulates in higher regions? What shall we answer? One thing only: because the interior of a body presents a perfect concavity it does not necessarily follow that its exterior surface is spherical and smoothly rounded. Look at the stone vaults of baths, and the structure of buildings of cave form; the dome, which forms the interior, does not prevent the roof from having ordinarily a flat surface. Let these unfortunate men cease, then, from tormenting us and themselves about the impossibility of our retaining water in the higher regions."
St. Basil covers many flat earth concepts in other chapters, but since globe promoters don't even address the firmament and pretend it (and the water above it) doesn't exist, we have a flat earther talking about the firmament dome above which is a vast amount of water and complaining about the men who torment Catholics with nonsense about the impossibility of retaining water above earth. And isn't that what moderns believe? They don't believe in the firmament, or the water above, they believe in balls shoot around in outer space!
St Basil is talking about people like you when he refers to this as vanity and says "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."
St. Basil's quote you provide above proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he's talking about people like you who distort the meaning of Scripture because he defends flat earth science.
A Father of the clearly teaches that Scripture is for spiritual edification and it is wrong to look for cosmology in it and you ignore him. You dismiss him with "suggesting he didn't really care is ridiculous because we all know it really does matter." When a Father teaches something you don't like, you are perfectly happy to decide that you know better.
But ignoring these matters is what you're suggesting in pointing to his quote. You're saying "Don't bother". You're suggesting his quote means that Scripture has no answers on this subject, or that it doesn't matter. In fact, we know St. Basil weighed in on the subject in the Hexaemeron and explained quite a bit, which proves you missed his points entirely.
Again, these are fallacious words spoken in haste as it is a fact that St. Basil defended
Well, I am going to take St. Basil's words to heart and treat this topic as the way he says to. I should not be posting on this and giving this unedifying topic an appearance of importance that it does not deserve.
Again, as seen above, St. Basil never intended for us to deny what Scripture IS trying to tell us as he explains it in the Hexaemeron and everything he says there is proving a literal interpretation of Scripture as well as a flat earth.
I have seen for myself how unedifying and divisive it is. While taking my most recent break from this topic, I had my first encounter with Smedley Butler on a topic on which we agreed. As I recall, it was something about family and women. More than the details of the discussion, I remember how it felt to finally interact with him as a my fellow Catholic for the first time after months of hostility and frustration. I want to be at peace with my fellow Catholics, not embroiled in pointless controversies.
This subject is only divisive if one ignores the Father's consensus on Scripture or ignore what it is they are telling us simply because one does not agree with them. They are consistent with each other, although each has a different aspect of the teaching on creation in order to enlighten about the mysteries of what is going on in our metaphysical world. Thank goodness for these great men and their beautiful words! Pretending that the Fathers and Scripture aren't teaching us anything about creation is what is divisive.
God bless you all.
God bless you too.