My point?
What I can't stand are logical fallacies.
Satan is the father of lies. It seems he's been "loosed" for a while now. And he's a much older, much "smarter," much higher-ordered creature than us. Fooling us is easy...How does this work with earth not moving and being the centre?
I don't know if the earth is flat or not and I'm not uncomfortable holding the "I don't know" position.
I'm much closer to certainty on geocentrism.
The modern Tychos Model (Brahe's model with the updated caveat that the Sun & Mars [red dwarf] are a binary pair) aligns flawlessly with the observable, while the heliocentric models (with strange eliptical planetary orbits--except Mars with its highly irregular orbit) are full of logical leaps and verbose justifications/explinations.
Traditional Catholics have believed the earth was a globe for nearly 2,000 years. Particularly since the age of discovery, when it actually became a relevant and practical question what the shape of the earth is, the traditional Catholics of those times constantly portrayed the earth as a globe, and have done so ever since. And using this portrayal they were able to navigate successfully to the smallest islands in the most remote parts of the earth.
Flat earth belief among traditional Catholics is a historical anomaly peculiar to only the last ten or twenty years. I had never heard of trads thinking the earth was flat as recently as a decade ago, and the movement has particularly grown in the last few years. Of the flat earthers on this forum, I suspect almost none of them believed the earth was flat ten years ago.
From a historical perspective, the idea is an intellectual fad. None of the Catholic kings, scholars, explorers, or conquistadors in the age of discovery or after ever thought the earth was anything but a globe. So I don't think it's accurate to lump globism in with evolution, old universe, aliens, or any other pagan error.
How does this work with earth not moving and being the centre?The Earth does move in the geocentric Tychos model, just very slowly.
The earth has mountains and hills, therefore it is not flat.
People say it doesn't matter but consider how even the Baltimore Catechism now states that there could be alien beings on other planets. :facepalm:
St. Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle:
Proof of the earth's spherical shape from motion
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~DeCael.L27
Proofs of the earth's sphericity from the angle of motion of its parts and from astronomy
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~DeCael.L28
This is nothing more than a Commentary on Aristotle and is purely "scientific". Last time I checked, St. Thomas was a Doctor of Doctrine/Theology, and not a Doctor of Physics. So this is an incredibly weak and pathetic "appeal to authority" when St. Thomas is no authority on matters of science. This would be like me appealing to the authority of a professor of Latin for a matter of science.
Why don't you read it? Maybe you would learn something.
Why don't you read it? Maybe you would learn something.
The same chapter includes the Saint's commentary on the philosopher's proof of geocentrism.If in your model the Earth moves then it's not what the Church Fathers believed nor does it escape the Holy Office's condemnation.
Big Bang and all the other atheistic science nonsense also requires a heliocentric solar system...
Geocentrism provides extremely strong evidence to support Creationism. It's what the Church has believed for most of Her history. And it works with Flat/Globe/Young/Old Earth models & theories.
It also works with ALL observable astronomy.
The "Tychos model" (Tycho Brahe's model + with the post-Brahe notion of binary systems = Mars & Sun are a binary pair orbiting Earth; Mars being the red dwarf; moonless Mercury & Venus are actually the Sun's moons) even provides a beautiful representation of the unseen reality. The math within it greatly elevates the importance of the Moon and its relation to all other nearby heavenly bodies...
In the Tychos binary model, one can find in the difficult-to-look-directly-at Sun a representation of the Father--creator & sustainer of all life; in Mars, we see a "sacrificed" red dwarf star that can be stared at directly from Earth. Mars can be seen as a type for the Son -- especially as it is visible but its true glory is hidden here in the Church Militant (as within the Eucharist). The Sun & Mars' beautifully-mapped binary trochoidal orbit around Earth can be seen as a type of the Holy Spirit. And the Moon can be seen as a type for Mary -- the Moon is, after all, below Her feet. And she is the "glue" that holds it all together.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the binary Sun & Mars geocentric model is the fact that modern astronomy has determined that the Sun is the only observable star in the sky that *is not* part of a binary pair. The size ratio between the Sun and its red dwarf (Mars) is identical to other observable binary pairs.
Horrible video proof. The marker the guy uses is a reflection of a building on the ground. If they are moving away from the ground, the reflection of what's on the ground will also change. And it is an unsteady video, and short, low altitude ascent. Figuring out what is optical illusion and how things would really look on a globe earth without error are beyond most people's abilities. Let us not open ourselves to being so easily deceived by things that are of relatively little importance to our purpose in life.
Anyway, this 2min video shows how the horizon rises to eye level as you gain altitude. On a ball earth the opposite would happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVo5nZt55LQ
Horrible video proof. The marker the guy uses is a reflection of a building on the ground.Reflection? What reflection?
If they are moving away from the ground, the reflection of what's on the ground will also change.
And it is an unsteady video,
and short, low altitude ascent.
Figuring out what is optical illusion and how things would really look on a globe earth without error are beyond most people's abilities.
Let us not open ourselves to being so easily deceived
by things that are of relatively little importance to our purpose in life.
Figuring out what is optical illusion and how things would really look on a globe earth without error are beyond most people's abilities.
If in your model the Earth moves then it's not what the Church Fathers believed nor does it escape the Holy Office's condemnation.
The Tychos Model is not "my" model.Interesting way of avoiding the points I raised.
It is a compelling secular model that provides very strong evidence for geocentrism, which is a concept that Holy Mother Church has proclaimed for most of Her existence. And still, today, geocentrism is dismissed almost as callously and quickly as "flat earth."
I bring attention to it here because it doesn't show up when I do searches--leading me to believe many regulars around here may not be exposed to it.
Interesting way of avoiding the points I raised.
Your points, as best as I can observe them, are that:Correct. Try finding a Church Father who believed the earth moved.
1. Any model that involves any movement of the Earth goes against what all of the Church fathers believed.
2. The Holy Office has condemned all models wherein Earth moves in any way.
The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
I am very ignorant on these matters. As such, I am not in a position to contest your points.All good my man, you did avoid my points,. however.
I also wasn't avoiding your points.
In my ignorance, I was clarifying that the Tychos model is not my own.
And while secular, I believe the Tychos Model is useful in helping people grasp that schoolbook astronomy is largely anti-Christian propaganda. Even in this secular Tychos model, types of the unseen reality can be found. I find that interesting. And helpful in our efforts to evangelize the full Traditional Catholic Truth.
Disney starting kids early with globalist indoctrination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whEHGvgqWB4
Horrible video proof. The marker the guy uses is a reflection of a building on the ground. If they are moving away from the ground, the reflection of what's on the ground will also change. And it is an unsteady video, and short, low altitude ascent. Figuring out what is optical illusion and how things would really look on a globe earth without error are beyond most people's abilities. Let us not open ourselves to being so easily deceived by things that are of relatively little importance to our purpose in life.
In this illustration, the horizon line is where the blue sky meets the brown street.https://graphicdesign2013.blogs.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/2013/03/06/perspective-scene/
Perhaps in the left hand drawing the viewer is sitting on the sidewalk, so the horizon line is low. In the right hand drawing the viewer is standing on the roof of a building, therefor the horizon line is higher
Right. When I said that it wouldn't affect how I live my life, I was just speaking about myself (and about others who have the Catholic faith).100 yes. The enemy has engaged in psy ops for centuries in preparation for the final decpetion -- the fake, staged, "alien" invasion which is built on a foundation of
But it matters tremendously for the general public.
Let's just assume for a minute that the Earth is in fact flat, and has a firmament covering it. It would be nearly impossible to persuade any thinking person that it all happened by chance and without an Intelligent Designer. When you have swirling balls coalescing into spheres as the basis of your cosmology, combined with "gravity", you can try to explain it as just swirling motion that creates order out of the chaos. Big Bang and all the other atheistic science nonsense absolutely requires a globe earth. And that's precisely why they've engaged in hiding FE ... in addition to the alien agenda that they've been planning.
There are a couple of notable Flat Earthers who had been atheists but came to believe in God solely due to their having become convinced of the Flat Earth. How many millions have lost their faith, or at least natural belief in God, which would put them closer to the faith, due to the modern "science" that a Father Paul Robinson extols as some kind of idol. So, yes, it does matter.
repeat
Youtube is bizarre. In my own library history, it won't pull up any flat earth videos I've watched in the past. It will only pull up debunker videos. I have to remember the name of the video or the channel and search it out all over again. Why? :confused:Youtube is owned by globalists who are in on the Big Lie.
Youtube is bizarre. In my own library history, it won't pull up any flat earth videos I've watched in the past. It will only pull up debunker videos. I have to remember the name of the video or the channel and search it out all over again. Why? :confused:Ah, yes, I remember that old post which I refuted back in the day. I will admit I misinterpreted which white line he was talking about in the video, but that doesn't matter. It's unfortunate that pictures and videos are so poor at conveying 3D details even if they were noticeable under the conditions in the examples you use. I know, because I am often disappointed by the image quality of things I want a picture of. Details that I could see in person become practically impossible to see in a picture. "Perspective not magic" can just as easily be used to argue against flat earth, but I'd rather spend my time doing something useful like memorizing St. James' epistle.
Anyway, here is the original video.
1min 51 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyacKCR9zKM
It's not a reflection. It's very clear and real life demonstration of something that can only happen on a flat plane and not on a ball.
It shows how the vanishing point perspective rises as you rise in altitude just like the other demo video with the rising balloon I showed.
Here, the graphics were improved in this one:
1min 4sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjkERI3L3Fw
On a ball, the horizon line would drop down lower and lower as you rise higher and higher.
But that never happens.
Vanishing point. Not curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/p8TUBG0.png)
The horizon line is not from the curve but from your visual limitations.
It rises as you rise which can only happen on a flat plane.
On a ball it would drop down lower.
Artists understand this. The three drawings below are from a graphic design website. What do you think is happening with the horizon line in these three drawings?
(https://i.imgur.com/I3yA6SY.png)
The graphic design instructor explains:
https://graphicdesign2013.blogs.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/2013/03/06/perspective-scene/
On a ball earth, the horizon line would be the exact opposite. The line for the person sitting on the ground would be low and the person on the roof top would be higher.
According to the ball earth Drop chart the horizon line 100 miles away should DROP down over a mile below you. It doesn't.Distance
Curvature
1 mile
0.00013 miles = 0.67 feet
2 miles
0.00051 miles = 2.67 feet
5 miles
0.00316 miles = 16.67 feet
10 miles
0.01263 miles = 66.69 feet
20 miles
0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
50 miles
0.31575 miles = 1667.17 feet
100 miles
1.26296 miles = 6668.41 feet
200 miles
5.05102 miles = 26669.37 feet
500 miles
31.5336 miles = 166497.53 feet
1000 miles
125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
(https://i.imgur.com/KUyNwJa.jpg)
This is also why you "level out" when you reach cruising altitude otherwise you would have to adjust the plane nose down
and after flying 500 miles the plane would have to adjust downwards
31 miles!!
Have you ever felt your plane going nose down? Say a quick act of contrition if you do!
The horizon line RISES to eye level and doesn't DROP.
That's the opposite of what would happen if you were rising above a ball.
I don't like calling people names, but the photos in this meme demonstrate it further.
You should not even see a horizon line in the top photo. It should have dropped away below you as you look out over the ball.
(https://i.imgur.com/ItPfNMu.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XyPTMeR.jpg)
Youtube is bizarre. In my own library history, it won't pull up any flat earth videos I've watched in the past. It will only pull up debunker videos. I have to remember the name of the video or the channel and search it out all over again. Why? :confused:
Anyway, here is the original video.
1min 51 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyacKCR9zKM
It's not a reflection. It's very clear and real life demonstration of something that can only happen on a flat plane and not on a ball.
It shows how the vanishing point perspective rises as you rise in altitude just like the other demo video with the rising balloon I showed.
Here, the graphics were improved in this one:
1min 4sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjkERI3L3Fw
On a ball, the horizon line would drop down lower and lower as you rise higher and higher.
But that never happens.
Vanishing point. Not curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/p8TUBG0.png)
The horizon line is not from the curve but from your visual limitations.
It rises as you rise which can only happen on a flat plane.
On a ball it would drop down lower.
Artists understand this. The three drawings below are from a graphic design website. What do you think is happening with the horizon line in these three drawings?
(https://i.imgur.com/I3yA6SY.png)
The graphic design instructor explains:
https://graphicdesign2013.blogs.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/2013/03/06/perspective-scene/
On a ball earth, the horizon line would be the exact opposite. The line for the person sitting on the ground would be low and the person on the roof top would be higher.
According to the ball earth Drop chart the horizon line 100 miles away should DROP down over a mile below you. It doesn't.Distance
Curvature
1 mile
0.00013 miles = 0.67 feet
2 miles
0.00051 miles = 2.67 feet
5 miles
0.00316 miles = 16.67 feet
10 miles
0.01263 miles = 66.69 feet
20 miles
0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
50 miles
0.31575 miles = 1667.17 feet
100 miles
1.26296 miles = 6668.41 feet
200 miles
5.05102 miles = 26669.37 feet
500 miles
31.5336 miles = 166497.53 feet
1000 miles
125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
(https://i.imgur.com/KUyNwJa.jpg)
This is also why you "level out" when you reach cruising altitude otherwise you would have to adjust the plane nose down
and after flying 500 miles the plane would have to adjust downwards
31 miles!!
Have you ever felt your plane going nose down? Say a quick act of contrition if you do!
The horizon line RISES to eye level and doesn't DROP.
That's the opposite of what would happen if you were rising above a ball.
I don't like calling people names, but the photos in this meme demonstrate it further.
You should not even see a horizon line in the top photo. It should have dropped away below you as you look out over the ball.
(https://i.imgur.com/ItPfNMu.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XyPTMeR.jpg)
In this illustration, the horizon line is where the blue sky meets the brown street.
Perhaps in the left hand drawing the viewer is sitting on the sidewalk, so the horizon line is low. In the right hand drawing the viewer is standing on the roof of a building, therefor the horizon line is higher
https://graphicdesign2013.blogs.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/2013/03/06/perspective-scene/
Sorry, but the real indoctrination from the film was the push of the false idea that in the middle ages it was commonly believed that the Earth was flat. This was a falsehood perpetrated by Washington Irving in his embellished life of Christopher Columbus. BTW: His biography of Columbus also highlights his prejudice against the Catholic Church.
Ah, yes, I remember that old post which I refuted back in the day. I will admit I misinterpreted which white line he was talking about in the video, but that doesn't matter. It's unfortunate that pictures and videos are so poor at conveying 3D details even if they were noticeable under the conditions in the examples you use. I know, because I am often disappointed by the image quality of things I want a picture of. Details that I could see in person become practically impossible to see in a picture. "Perspective not magic" can just as easily be used to argue against flat earth, but I'd rather spend my time doing something useful like memorizing St. James' epistle.Pretty decent argument against pursuing flat earth "truth" AND sedevacantism.
Traditional Catholics have believed the earth was a globe for nearly 2,000 years. Particularly since the age of discovery, when it actually became a relevant and practical question what the shape of the earth is, the traditional Catholics of those times constantly portrayed the earth as a globe, and have done so ever since. And using this portrayal they were able to navigate successfully to the smallest islands in the most remote parts of the earth.
Flat earth belief among traditional Catholics is a historical anomaly peculiar to only the last ten or twenty years. I had never heard of trads thinking the earth was flat as recently as a decade ago, and the movement has particularly grown in the last few years. Of the flat earthers on this forum, I suspect almost none of them believed the earth was flat ten years ago.
From a historical perspective, the idea is an intellectual fad. None of the Catholic kings, scholars, explorers, or conquistadors in the age of discovery or after ever thought the earth was anything but a globe. So I don't think it's accurate to lump globism in with evolution, old universe, aliens, or any other pagan error.
Pretty decent argument against pursuing flat earth "truth" AND sedevacantism.
It's clear that the enemy is running rampant and we're living under severe chastisements...
Outside of recognizing these truths, making reparations and clinging to the traditional mass and sacraments wherever we can access them, does anything else really matter?
Not saying I'm 100% with you, but I certainly ain't against you.
Pretty decent argument against pursuing flat earth "truth" AND sedevacantism.Ah yes, one of those "truth is a distraction" types.
It's clear that the enemy is running rampant and we're living under severe chastisements...
Outside of recognizing these truths, making reparations and clinging to the traditional mass and sacraments wherever we can access them, does anything else really matter?
Not saying I'm 100% with you, but I certainly ain't against you.
Ah yes, one of those "truth is a distraction" types.I disagree with them being bitter for recognising a heretic Pope, as lay people aren't clergy, it's one thing for a lay person to think a heretic can be Pope as it's not really expected for them to be able to do anything about it, the clergy should be doing something..., it's another thing entirely to agree with a heretic Pope in his heresies.
Sure, don't look into FE, but you're going to regret bitterly that you recognized antichrists as popes and the abomination of desolation as the Mass.
I've just signed a new client, so have a little extra cash.
CathInfo has a flat earth thread so here is my challenge for $10,000 plus all their travel costs paid.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-earth-is-flat/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-earth-is-flat/)
All commercial jets fly through the air and carry a maximum amount of fuel. The maximum range of these jets are known and widely published. The jet used to make every flight is easily established by looking at it from the outside and its serial number. All such jets are tracked in real time. Everyone on this forum and Cathinfo can follow it.
Cathinfo members discuss debate and agree on a flat earth map which is as close as possible to the flat earth they believe to exist and an impossible scheduled flight, such as Chile to Australia, which would require refuelling because the straight line distance on a flat earth is beyond the range of that or any aircraft. Probably a southern hemisphere flight but they can pick any flight they wish that is impossible on a flat earth.
If the world is flat then for this scheduled flight to happen they either need to be refuelled in mid-air or land at a secret South Pacific location and re-fuel. Otherwise the plane would run out of fuel and crash into the sea.
Cathinfo members take that flight and they make a timestamped video recording of the refuelling aircraft getting into position easily visible from the windows or their refuelling stop in the secret island.
If the video evidence is produced I will pay for their travel costs and give CathInfo $10,000 which Matthew can distribute as he sees fit. If they cannot produce that evidence and the flight lands after a single take off and landing, then Cathinfo must admit that the world is a globe and pick up the cost of the flights themselves.
I'm banned from the website, for pointing out Matthew did not know how to read his water-meter, so someone who is not banned is welcome to post my offer on there.
If they don't take this offer up, then given that Matthew is always asking for funds to run the website, one can assume that they are not sincere about "seeking the truth", which is what Matthew CLAIMS to be in the opening post on the thread listed above.
If I've missed anything or this does not constitute a proof, then please feel free to point out the error.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=31104.0HAHAHAHA what a stupid challenge.
From poster Greg:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=31104.0He needs to read this:
From poster Greg:
The horizon is always the same. It never drops below, as it would on a Ball. No matter *how high* they go.
Really, the horizon line not dropping is incredibly compelling. One of the things that has always struck me is that if you've ever seen that footage from those amateur balloons at 120,000 feet ... if you were to look from one end of the state of Kansas to the other side, lengthwise, there would be a curvature "drop" of ... nearly 120,000 feet, the same as the altitude of those balloons (flying at 4x the height of commercial airliners). That kind of a "bulge" or "curve" would absolutely be noticeable from those very balloons.Maybe if you were strapped to the balloon, and had no confirmation bias. As best as I can remember, some of the weather balloon and rocket videos show the horizon dropping, but it is hard to really get a sense of that when looking at a screen. It could just be my own confirmation bias, but I think not.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=31104.0What a waste of $10,000. How many trads could benefit from a little piece of that to fix a minivan, or get some house repair done? Matthew could even use some to buy Reading Water Meters for Dummies.
From poster Greg:
I've just signed a new client, so have a little extra cash.
CathInfo has a flat earth thread so here is my challenge for $10,000 plus all their travel costs paid.
What a waste of $10,000. How many trads could benefit from a little piece of that to fix a minivan, or get some house repair done? Matthew could even use some to buy Reading Water Meters for Dummies.
But not only was he going off/mocking me about it, he wouldn't let it drop.
Really, the horizon line not dropping is incredibly compelling. One of the things that has always struck me is that if you've ever seen that footage from those amateur balloons at 120,000 feet ... if you were to look from one end of the state of Kansas to the other side, lengthwise, there would be a curvature "drop" of ... nearly 120,000 feet, the same as the altitude of those balloons (flying at 4x the height of commercial airliners). That kind of a "bulge" or "curve" would absolutely be noticeable from those very balloons.
There have been dozens of laser tests conducted over many miles (I think the longest distance was like 27 miles), photogaphs taken by non-FE amateur photogaphers of the Alps from 700 miles away, where they should have been hidden by 85 MILES of curvature, photograph of a lighthouse that stands 150 feet above sea level at its top (again by a non-FE) from something like 230 miles away when it too should have been hidden by miles of curvature, the tests done by Dr. John D (publicly and pre-announced) where he conducted a two-way laser experiment, which blows away the "refraction" nonsense, since an increase in air density in one direction would mean a decrease in the other direction and therefore upward refraction (but both lasers were spotted), Dr. John D's "black swan" wind turbine videos, the world-record 800-mile "line of sight" UHF signal beam, the 237-mile "line of sight" microwave broadband connection over the Mediterranean, and on and on and on. Unless someone could posit an alternative theory about why this happens besides "refraction" about how light always bends around the "globe" due to some kind of electromagnetic force, then ... apart from such an explanation ... the "globe" is dead in the water.
Traditional Catholics have believed the earth was a globe for nearly 2,000 years. Particularly since the age of discovery, when it actually became a relevant and practical question what the shape of the earth is, the traditional Catholics of those times constantly portrayed the earth as a globe, and have done so ever since. And using this portrayal they were able to navigate successfully to the smallest islands in the most remote parts of the earth.The closest you are coming to the truth is by use of the term " age of discovery": IT IS COLUMBUS -- almost by himself-- who shows us that E is a globe,,,, :popcorn:
Flat earth belief among traditional Catholics is a historical anomaly peculiar to only the last ten or twenty years. I had never heard of trads thinking the earth was flat as recently as a decade ago, and the movement has particularly grown in the last few years. Of the flat earthers on this forum, I suspect almost none of them believed the earth was flat ten years ago.
From a historical perspective, the idea is an intellectual fad. None of the Catholic kings, scholars, explorers, or conquistadors in the age of discovery or after ever thought the earth was anything but a globe. So I don't think it's accurate to lump globism in with evolution, old universe, aliens, or any other pagan error.
Scripture is a flat earth book.
Read the Church's teaching provided. If you're unaware Scripture is a flat earth book, perhaps you should read that too.
This is getting really out of hand. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw."spooky
Enoch was not accepted into the canon of Scripture. It is not relevant. St. Augustine is considered by most scholars to have believed the earth is a globe, but there is some controversy. For St. Hildegard and St. Robert, there is no controversy that I have heard of. They believed the earth is a globe. Why do you think they believed it was flat?
That's funny, I constantly find historical proof that Christendom knew the earth was flat. From Enoch, to St. Augustine to St. Hildegard of Bingen, plus dozens of saints and Fathers of the Church, not to mention the digression on the subject by greats like Robert Bellarmine against heliocentrism
Enoch was not accepted into the canon of Scripture. It is not relevant. St. Augustine is considered by most scholars to have believed the earth is a globe, but there is some controversy. For St. Hildegard and St. Robert, there is no controversy that I have heard of. They believed the earth is a globe. Why do you think they believed it was flat?
Can you actually name a dozen Saints who believed the earth is flat and give quotes to back up your claim? I would be very surprised, given how widespread belief in globe earth was in Catholic history.
Can you actually name a dozen Saints who believed the earth is flat and give quotes to back up your claim? I would be very surprised, given how widespread belief in globe earth was in Catholic history.Given Tradman's response to this, I take it the answer is no.
Given Tradman's response to this, I take it the answer is no.
I have been following discussions of Flat Earth on Cathinfo for many years, longer than this childboard has existed for the topic. I remember when it was created around six years ago. I have also read through the articles on the Flat Earth Trads website. Nowhere in these sources has anyone produced quotes from dozens (or even one dozen) of Saints supporting the idea that the earth is flat.
Catching up with what has already discussed here on CI at length, to include the saints who so eloquently expounded on the typology of Scriptural flat earth, might help you understand the argument and even provide the list of names you're looking for. After you study the flat earth pages and find the information you seek and become better informed, we can all carry on discussing the subject.
I have been following discussions of Flat Earth on Cathinfo for many years, longer than this childboard has existed for the topic. I remember when it was created around six years ago. I have also read through the articles on the Flat Earth Trads website. Nowhere in these sources has anyone produced quotes from dozens (or even one dozen) of Saints supporting the idea that the earth is flat.
While I do not know enough about science to participate in that aspect of the discussion, I have a good understanding of Catholic history. There have been virtually no Catholics, Saints or otherwise, who wrote in support of flat earth since St. Bede wrote that the earth is globe in 725. This recent flat earth movement among Catholics is a novelty.
Here is a quote from St. Bede: ‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’ (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999), p. 91).
The last time I checked the Flat Earth Trads site, they could only produce a handful of quotes from the Church Fathers in support of flat earth. St. John Damascene (himself a Church Father) summarized the views of the Fathers by saying that they disagreed on the shape of the earth but it was not a question of spiritual significance.
After the Patristic period there was over a thousand years of virtual unanimity among Catholics that the earth is a globe, although this has consistently been seen as a matter of science and not faith. Since it is a matter of science, we are free to discuss whether science supports flat earth. We are not free to make up things about the history of Christendom that never happened.
Enoch was not accepted into the canon of Scripture. It is not relevant. St. Augustine is considered by most scholars to have believed the earth is a globe, but there is some controversy. For St. Hildegard and St. Robert, there is no controversy that I have heard of. They believed the earth is a globe. Why do you think they believed it was flat?
Can you actually name a dozen Saints who believed the earth is flat and give quotes to back up your claim? I would be very surprised, given how widespread belief in globe earth was in Catholic history.
Not a good look Tradman. You expected to get away with claiming dozens of saints support FE without providing proof?
I'd love to see the quotes, I'm sure you have some from the Fathers, but I really doubt there is anything from later saints besides some visionaries and mystics.
I think that quite a few of the Church Fathers believed the earth to be flat, particularly those of the Antiochene school.It is easy enough to find people who claim that, but this is not supported with quotes. The Flat Earth Trads site, for example, claims that the "Church Fathers were almost unanimous in their opinion that the earth was flat" but only has citations from four. And I think the site is correct in its selection of quotes. People who attempt to go over that number, end up quoting things that are not actually saying anything about flat earth or including quotes from sources who are not Catholic Saints, such as Cosmas. (Cosmas has no authority whatsoever, nor was he influential in Catholic thought.)
I've also seen a larger context from Bede where the full quote made me doubt that he was thinking of the "ball" earth rather than a spherical world in general.Could you be more explicit about what makes you think this? I can not think of anything in the context that could support such a conclusion. Given how extensively St. Bede quotes Pliny in the larger context, the obvious way to understand him is that he shares Pliny's model of a globe earth.
Historian Andrew Dickson White (who disagreed with St. Clement) explains in his book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," says: ...
White is not a reliable source.
Historian of science Lawrence M. Principe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Principe) writes, "No serious historians of science or of the science-religion issue today maintain the warfare thesis...The origins of the warfare thesis lie in the late 19th century, specifically in the work of two men - John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. These men had specific political purposes in mind when arguing their case, and the historical foundations of their work are unreliable." [2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Warfare_of_Science_with_Theology_in_Christendom#cite_note-2)
Principe goes on to write "Despite appearances, White’s arguments are scarcely any better than Draper’s. White uses fallacious arguments and suspect or bogus sources. His methodological errors are collectivism (the unwarrantable extension of an individual’s views to represent that of some larger group of which he is a part), a lack of critical judgement about sources, argument by ridicule and assertion, failure to check primary sources, and quoting selectively and out of context. White popularized the baseless notions that before Columbus and Magellan, the world was thought to be flat and that the Earth’s sphericity was officially opposed by the Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth). He is also responsible for the equally fallacious notion that the Church forbade human dissection. The notion - eternally repopularized by Hollywood - that the medieval Church condemned all science as devilry runs throughout White; this view is likewise baseless."[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Warfare_of_Science_with_Theology_in_Christendom#cite_note-3)
In his course on science and religion, Principe points out a couple of examples of White's poor scholarship, "Let’s start with a simple and a notorious example: the idea that before Columbus people thought that the world was flat. Well, in fact, it is Draper and White, specifically, both of them, who bear most of the blame for popularizing this baseless view to the extent that nowadays, 80 percent of school teachers still foist this upon poor innocent school children. The fact is that of course the sphericity of the Earth was well established by the fifth century BC by the Greeks, and a good measure of its circuмference made by the third century BC. And these facts were never forgotten in learned Western Culture."
Principe goes on to say, "White tells of a brave Columbus who fought mightily for the revolutionary notion of the earth’s sphericity. And here he helps us out (damning himself) with a footnote that reads “W. Irving, Life of Columbus” Yes, indeed, this is Washington Irving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving) of Rip Van Winkle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle) and headless horseman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headless_horseman) fame, who wrote a fictionalized account of Columbus in 1838. Yet White uses it as a historical source. This is an error of critical judgement."[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Warfare_of_Science_with_Theology_in_Christendom#cite_note-4)
Principe sums up White's book this way: "Refuting White is like shooting fish in a barrel. With his combination of bad sources, argument by assertion, quoting out of context, collectivism, and general reliance on exclamation, rather than evidence and argument, White’s is not a book to be taken seriously. Its real value is as a relic of its particular time and place, and as a museum of how not to write history...While we can look today with astonishment upon the shoddy character of Draper and White’s writings, their books have had enormous impact, and we can’t deny that. Much of this is due to their great success in their creating a myth for science as a religion. Their myth of science as a religion is replete with battles, and martyrdoms, and saints, and creeds. And as we know, or should know, myths are often much more powerful than historical realities."[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Warfare_of_Science_with_Theology_in_Christendom#cite_note-5)
Could you be more explicit about what makes you think this? I can not think of anything in the context that could support such a conclusion. Given how extensively St. Bede quotes Pliny in the larger context, the obvious way to understand him is that he shares Pliny's model of a globe earth.
Maybe we should make a map with Calvary in the centre?
From The Dolorous Passion of Anne Catherine Emmerich:
"I learned also that the prophet having related what had happened to him, the spot received the name of Calvary. Finally, I saw that the Cross of Jesus was placed vertically over the skull of Adam. I was informed that this spot was the exact centre of the earth; and at the same time I was shown the numbers and measures proper to every country, but I have forgotten them, individually as well as in general. Yet I have seen this centre from above, and as it were from a bird's-eye view. In that way a person sees far more clearly than on a map all the different countries, mountains, deserts, seas, rivers, towns, and even the smallest places, whether distant or near at hand." http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/pjc/pjc68.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/pjc/pjc68.htm)
Maybe we should make a map with Calvary in the centre?
Even worse, you shamelessly avoided any acknowledgment of the trustworthy Catholic sources provided, including Scripture, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Cosmas, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Virgilus, Methodius, Lactanctius, St. Clement of Alexandria, Moses, Enoch, Severian of Gabala, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and the multitude of other saints and Fathers and Catholics that you prefer to ignore. :laugh1:If we threw out your quotes that do not actually support flat earth and the ones that are not actually from Saints we would be left with the same four Fathers that are cited on the Flat Earth Trads site. That is apparetly run by somebody who agrees with you about flat earth but understands how to recognize relevant quotes.
If we threw out your quotes that do not actually support flat earth and the ones that are not actually from Saints we would be left with the same four Fathers that are cited on the Flat Earth Trads site. That is apparetly run by somebody who agrees with you about flat earth but understands how to recognize relevant quotes.What quotes do not support flat earth that you think need thrown out? And which four saints are you referring to?
Cosmas is not a "trustworthy Catholic source". He was a random monk who had faded into obscurity until intellectually dishonest anti-Catholics pretended that he representative of Catholic thinking in order to make Catholics look bad. (Contrast him with the globe-earth- supporting St. Bede, an influential writer, Saint, and Doctor of the Church. It should be obvious which one really represents Catholic thinking.)
Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church. Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".
Some of your quotes do come from genuine Catholic sources, but you are conflating geocentrism with flat earth and treating support for geocentrism as if it were support for flat earth. Perhaps you noticed in my Bede quote earlier in the thread that he supported both globe earth and geocentrism. This was a very common position among Catholics throughout history so it is incorrect to treat quotes about geocentrism as you have.
Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church. Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".:facepalm: I could challenge all of your points in the previous posts, which are filled with half-truths and generalizations, but i'll stick to this one.
:facepalm: I could challenge all of your points in the previous posts, which are filled with half-truths and generalizations, but i'll stick to this one.
Both Christ and St James quoted the Book of Enoch in Scripture; yes, at the time when Christ lived (i.e. early Christianity), the Book of Enoch was considered inspired by Old Testament Jews. The reason it wasn't included in the Catholic Bible by the Church in the 400s, was due to many Jєωιѕн books being lost during the destruction of Jerusalem. When the book was "found" by Jєωιѕн leaders in the 300s-400s, Catholic scholars noted many differences and couldn't trust the source.
Now, whether or not the "newest found" book of the 1800/1900s is legit, is up for debate. I'd probably trust Protestants over Jews. But either way, i'm not sure if the V2-led church can be trusted to review this source, and it's not going to be added to Scripture, so the issue is irrelevant.
However, i've read the newest edition of the book of Enoch a few times and I don't see much that is contrary to Catholicism. In fact, much in it supports Catholicism which means it probably wasn't messed with by Protestants. This further leads to it's *marginal* credibility.
And even if this newest found version was edited by Protestants/Jews/Muslims, they probably would only edit the doctrinal/theological subjects, and not topics such as science/cosmos/geography. So the fact that such topics support flat earth is *more* believable because its *possible* that these were actually written by Enoch himself.
Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church. Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".
Eventually I'll complete my study of the Church Fathers, who were grossly misrepresented and distorted by Dr. Sungenis (applying his own "eisegesis" to them), but by and large when they refer to a "sphere", they're almost always clearly talking about the shape of the entire world, including the firmament.
This idea that they believed in a ball-shaped earth that people walked on as it floated through space is absurd, and we can't read the "NASA ball" into every reference to a sphere (and even once time a circle), as Sungenis does.
What is clear is that they all universally believed in a solid firmament and that it was solid enough to hold real physical waters from the face of the earth. There were debates (some recounted by St. Augustine) regarding the shape of this firmament. There were debates (recounted by another Father, whose name slips my recall right now) about what it was made of, i.e. how the heavenly luminaries move if the firmament is solid enough to keep water out. Some argued that the heavenly bodies to not move within the firmament (since it's solid) but that the entire firmament rotates, others that it was made of some substance in between solid and liquid (perhaps like a plasma) where things could move through it, even though it was solid enough to keep waters out. We also have to recall that they did not have a concept of "gravity", so the notion of things sticking to the bottom of something would be strange and bizarre. In fact, some of the Father who believed the world to be shaped like a hemisphere believed that because they felt that the heavier elements would sink to the bottom of the cosmic water, while St. Ambrose made a case for how it might be suspended amid the waters. So they understood density, not gravity. St. Augustine chimed in by saying it would be acceptable to hold that the earth was at the bottom center of the cosmos (and therefore shaped like a hemisphere), since bottom center is still center.
So this idea of a ball floating around the vacuum of space at no point entered the minds of any Church Fathers, despite the fact that some try to read it into them.
Not to get into another argument with you about this, but don’t you think that all of this FE stuff would have been exposed during the Galileo trial? To put it another way, if the Church Fathers believed in some sort of FE model, this would have been front and center during the trial, but to my knowledge, FE wasn’t even considered.I think the argument is that it was taken for granted that it was a snow globe and not a globe globe. There are contexts that are like this today where we interpret something phrased back then as something else.
Not to get into another argument with you about this, but don’t you think that all of this FE stuff would have been exposed during the Galileo trial? To put it another way, if the Church Fathers believed in some sort of FE model, this would have been front and center during the trial, but to my knowledge, FE wasn’t even considered.
if the Church Fathers believed in some sort of FE model, this would have been front and center during the trialNon sequitur.
Non sequitur.
But I would agree that if Bellarmine et al. believed in some sort of FE model then that would have been front and center during the trial.
However, Divine Providence required the globular theory to spread in order for the present atheistic apostasy to come about, just as Baptism of Desire was allowed to spread as a foot in the door for Vatican II.
If one honestly reads just the Fathers instead of second-hand accounts or modern scientists and theologians one will invariably reject both the globe and BoD.
Not to get into another argument with you about this, but don’t you think that all of this FE stuff would have been exposed during the Galileo trial? To put it another way, if the Church Fathers believed in some sort of FE model, this would have been front and center during the trial, but to my knowledge, FE wasn’t even considered.
Great points. The Great Apostasy had to happen.
Eventually I'll complete my study of the Church Fathers, who were grossly misrepresented and distorted by Dr. Sungenis (applying his own "eisegesis" to them), but by and large when they refer to a "sphere", they're almost always clearly talking about the shape of the entire world, including the firmament.I definitely would read your study. Most people would learn a great deal about the Faith, by reading the Church Fathers, especially on doctrinal issues.
No, it didn't come up. They were specifically examining Sacred Scripture and the Fathers with regard to the contention that the earth moved. Regardless, no determination was made regarding the shape of the earth ... one way or the other.
Utter nonsense. The Church condemned what it condemned, nothing less, nothing more. If the inquisitors meant to condemn the globe they would certainly have said so explicitly at least once in the official acts. But we not only don't see any mention of the issue in the official condemnation, but even private correspondence is completely free of the globe theory.
The theory that earth is a globe, intrinsic to the Pythagorean Doctrine heliocentric model, (although not to the geocentric model), was never specifically redeemed from the Holy Office condemnations. Someone would have to explain how the globe fits with Scripture, as well as prove that the Church authorities didn't include the globe in the condemnations. Flat earth is a drawn conclusion in this matter, but it's inarguable that the Pythagorean Doctrine and heliocentrism were "altogether condemned", and included the whole of it, because it was extremely dangerous to the Faith and contrary to Scripture. Was the globe excluded? Why didn't they say so? For the same reason it wasn't necessary to itemize and then condemn every aspect of the false religion. It is included. Catholic authorities condemned two specifics along with the heresy in toto. Any proof to the contrary is what this discussion is about, so anyone with other information should bring it out in the forum.
Utter nonsense. The Church condemned what it condemned, nothing less, nothing more. If the inquisitors meant to condemn the globe they would certainly have said so explicitly at least once in the official acts. But we not only don't see any mention of the issue in the official condemnation, but even private correspondence is completely free of the globe theory.
However much I wish FE was addressed and the consensus of the Father pointed out to the doubters, it wasn't.
The existence of the Earth is also a necessary component of heliocentrism. Who decides which details are implicitly included and which aren't?
The Church condemned heliocentrism more than once. According to The Earthmovers, both Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633 condemned Heliocentrism and the Pythagorean heresies of Galileo. With Urban VIII universally publicizing the verdict:
Quote
On 2nd, July 1633, under orders of Pope Urban VIII, the condemnation of heliocentrism was made universally public, not just confined to Galileo alone as some apologists would argue later. Copies of the sentence and Galileo’s abjuration were sent to all vicar nuncios and inquisitors who in turn made them known to professors of philosophy and theology throughout the Catholic world. - Prologue, p. 9
The globe is a necessary component of heliocentrism. It's not possible they condemned a heresy and not include it's details.
You're conflating the two concerns. Simply because the Church did not hold the book to be inspired Scripture does not meant it was not "written by the Patriarch of that name".It is true that authorship and inspiration are related but not identical concerns. However, in the case of the wrtings attributed to Enoch, a consensus that he was not the author arose around the same time that the writings were definitively excluded from the Canon of Scripture.
Utter nonsense. The Church condemned what it condemned, nothing less, nothing more. If the inquisitors meant to condemn the globe they would certainly have said so explicitly at least once in the official acts. But we not only don't see any mention of the issue in the official condemnation, but even private correspondence is completely free of the globe theory.There was no reason for the subject of the shape of the earth to arise because at that point in history it was completely uncontroversial. Everyone agreed that the earth is a globe. including the inquisitors. This was part of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model held by the majority, part of Tycho Brahe's model, and left unquestioned by Galileo. Everybody took it for granted.
The existence of the Earth is also a necessary component of heliocentrism. Who decides which details are implicitly included and which aren't?
So this idea of a ball floating around the vacuum of space at no point entered the minds of any Church Fathers, despite the fact that some try to read it into them.
They generally thought the earth was a sphere nested inside a series of other spheres ...
Bullshit. Now you're showing your complete dishonesty. Church Fathers unanimously believed that the WORLD was a sphere (including the firmament) and that it was suspended in water (or at the bottom and covered by water).I am not sure why you thought the word "they" in my post referred to Church Fathers. After seeing your misunderstanding I modified my post to make it even clearer.
However, in the case of the writings attributed to Enoch, a consensus that he was not the authorIt was determined that Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents (by the Jews) which were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem. The original, pre-Jerusalem-destruction-book-of-Enoch was considered inspired by the OT Jєωιѕн religion.
It was determined that Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents (by the Jєωs) which were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem. The original, pre-Jerusalem-destruction-book-of-Enoch was considered inspired by the OT Jєωιѕн religion.Just wondering, who determined Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents? Are we talking about the famous ones found in the 40's? Also,
No, it didn't come up. They were specifically examining Sacred Scripture and the Fathers with regard to the contention that the earth moved. Regardless, no determination was made regarding the shape of the earth ... one way or the other.
They probably should have looked into it, as the Church Fathers were unanimous that there was a physical firmament that kept physical waters off the earth ... as is clearly found in Sacred Scripture.
What I’m suggesting is that, to me, it’s impossible to believe that the Earth’s shape didn’t come up since the Earth was certainly the central object in the controversy. This of course is assuming that the common opinion at the time was that the Earth was actually flat or variation there of.
You can even hear Saint Robert Bellarmine, the pope, and the trial judges saying, ‘this nut Galileo believes that the Earth is some sort of ball!!! Do you believe it’?
Now, if the common opinion was that the Earth was in fact a globe, then yes, it’s shape wouldn’t have been contested and thus not have been discussed and I would agree with you on this point.
For whatever reason, the subject came up. Could simply have been that Galileo's focus was in the skies, and not on the earth and it wasn't a point of emphasis in his various writings. Typically the Holy Office investigates only actual statements made by an individual and don't deal with broader doctrinal questions (which is usually addressed directly by popes). Holy Office responds to specific cases rather than general doctrinal questions.
I think you meant: “the subject didn’t come up”?
Are you saying that it is *possible* that Galileo wasn’t convinced that the Earth was a globe and ultimately it had no bearing on his heliocentric theory? If so, I think that it’s almost impossible to believe.
I think you meant: “the subject didn’t come up”?
Are you saying that it is *possible* that Galileo wasn’t convinced that the Earth was a globe and ultimately it had no bearing on his heliocentric theory? If so, I think that it’s almost impossible to believe.
I know this question was for Ladislaus, and he can handle his own responses, but I wanted to respond as well. The subject of the globe did come up. We have Inchofer, the bishop who assessed and recorded everything, in Galileo trial, the 6th argument against Galileo, regarding the "Great Orb", with water on the outside. They are talking about how the globe doesn't work with the firmament, it's movement, the water outside, etc. Now, you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever, but is was an argument against Galileo.
I'm sure Galileo thought the earth was a globe, but I doubt it came up in his works.Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.
Thanks for this, but I counter that this doesn’t necessarily make an argument against the geocentric model with a global Earth. It seems that the prosecutors are just pointing out how the Earth must be (tentatively?) motionless in order to keep stability.
First you write: “They are talking about how the globe doesn’t work the firmament” then you write: “you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever”. Did they mention a globe or not? Can you give me the reference or direct me to the specific citation.
So I still contend that it was believed by all learned men at the time that the Earth was a globe and not flat or a “snow globe” type design.
Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.
Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.
Heliocentrism is a DIRECT attack on catholic scripture and it’s implied philosophy of the earth being the center of the universe, which Christ Redeemed.
A globe earth does not pose as many problems, doctrinally or philosophically, though some issues still remain. If Galileo had simply posited the earth was a globe, I doubt the Church would’ve gotten involved.
Well, in theory, you could hold that the earth is a globe in the sense of a snow globe and somehow moves around the sun ... but I doubt anyone actually held that.:laugh1:
So I still contend that it was believed by all learned men at the time that the Earth was a globe and not flat or a “snow globe” type design.
If Galileo had simply posited the earth was a globe, I doubt the Church would’ve gotten involved.There were no objections from the Church when St. Bede, St. Albert the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe. Rather, all three of these Saints were declared Doctors of the Church. This seems unlikely if they were teaching something heretical or problematic.
There were no objections from the Church when St. Bede, St. Albert the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe. Rather, all three of these Saints were declared Doctors of the Church. This seems unlikely if they were teaching something heretical or problematic.
It is reasonable to talk about differing views on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period. St. John Damascene explicitly states that the Fathers disagreed. But from St. Bede on there was a consensus on the question. At the time of Galileo, it was around a thousand years since Catholics had believed in flat earth.
Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm
(http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)Here is the section on the shape of the earth:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.
This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.
Debunked by modern technology: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/no-star-movement-during-flight-equals-flat-earth/
Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm
(http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)Here is the section on the shape of the earth:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
Debunked by modern technology: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/no-star-movement-during-flight-equals-flat-earth/
Wow! This is amazing! Thank you for sharing! :cowboy:
Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm
(http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)Here is the section on the shape of the earth:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.
This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.
One of the MAIN problems with interpreting the meaning of the Church Fathers and other historical figures discussing this topic is that BOTH sides of Flat Earth and Ball Earth can use the same terminology.
Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system. Do you concede that point?
One of the MAIN problems with interpreting the meaning of the Church Fathers and other historical figures discussing this topic is that BOTH sides of Flat Earth and Ball Earth can use the same terminology.
Please prove with texts and sources where St. Bede, St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe.
Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system. Do you concede that point?
Since most people won't watch the video I posted...
That "bulge" thingy simply don't make sense whether you are an ancient Greek, a Catholic university professor in 1200 or whatnot:
I'm not sure how that book proved anything whatsoever. Does the mass production of model globes prove earth is a globe? Even if the entire world read it and half believed it, what would that prove except the church had enemies that try to undermine belief in Scripture.
Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system.Another work that supports this point is Historia rerum ubique gestarum, written by Pius II before his papacy (1458-1464). He begins this work by explaining “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.”
Another work that supports this point is Historia rerum ubique gestarum, written by Pius II before his papacy (1458-1464). He begins this work by explaining “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.”
An interesting thing about this work is that Christopher Columbus (who did not attend university) used it as the basis of his calculations and his personal copy of it with his notes still exists.
Speaking of Christopher Columbus, even the anti-Catholics who dishonestly asserted that Columbus was opposed by ignorant stupid Catholics when he claimed the earth to be a globe, don't deny that Catholics believed in a globe earth after his famous journey. According to their false narrative, Catholics were forced to believe it because Columbus had proven it. (That, of course, is nonsense. Educated Catholics had already reached a scientific consensus on globe earth centuries before that time.) Anyhow, even these dishonest anti-Catholics had to admit that virtually everyone believed the earth to be a globe at the time of Galileo.
I'm not sure how that book proved anything whatsoever.It shows that it is incorrect to assume that the condemnation of Galileo somehow includes the idea of globe earth. The people who issued the condemnation were educated Catholics who almost certainly believed what they had been taught at university, i.e. the earth is a globe. They would not have intended to condemn something that they themselves believed.
It shows that it is incorrect to assume that the condemnation of Galileo somehow includes the idea of globe earth. The people who issued the condemnation were educated Catholics who almost certainly believed what they had been taught at university, i.e. the earth is a globe. They would not have intended to condemn something that they themselves believed.
Belief in globe earth was wide-spread, probably universal at that time. If there were anything theologically objectionable about this, why would Church authorities be silent on the subject while condemning the errors of Galileo?
Since most people won't watch the video I posted...
That "bulge" thingy simply don't make sense whether you are an ancient Greek, a Catholic university professor in 1200 or whatnot:
Here we are at the top of the "bulge"
(https://i.imgur.com/Ad3X8aq.png)
You have to look down to see the horizon.
Here is the 1200 AD Catholic professor looking out at the horizon:
(https://i.imgur.com/bXGWnHC.png)
Yeah, he would have to look down to see it. Have you ever had to look down to see the horizon?
I know he is a super duper Catholic professor from the 12th cent with special "knowledge" and "enlightenment" from the ancient Greeks and maybe he has super powers I don't have
but this has never been my experience. Have you experienced this?
And well, let's just say he is lower down on
"the bulge"
well, this is what he would see when looking
straight out towards the horizon:
(https://i.imgur.com/fuJBPRu.png)
Man, that 12th cent Catholic professor needs to rethink his bulge theory and do a bit of math and all that and figure out that
they ain't no bulge
and they ain't no curve.
If you want to hear further analysis of this
COMMON SENSE
then watch this video starting at 14:32 about the
STUPID BULGE theory
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YNPh1fjo7HaD/
or watch the whole thing.
It's hard to accept we have been lied to, but indeed we have and it's better to accept the obvious truth than to continue to believe really dumb lies. smh :laugh1:
We all agree that spherical earth has been pushing its way into our consciences for centuries and has become widely accepted. We also know the Fathers of the Church, Scripture, Popes and saints fought it the entire way.That is not something "we" know. Some Fathers wrote that the Earth was flat. St. Augustine, however, taught that Scripture is silent on the subject. This was the view adopted by the Church and incorporated in Magisterial teaching. Catholics treated the shape of the earth as a matter of science, not faith, from the time of St. Bede onward. This is most of the history of the Church. Virtually all learned people, including Saints, accepted the science which taught that the earth is a globe. Nobody was fighting it.
Another work that supports this point is Historia rerum ubique gestarum, written by Pius II before his papacy (1458-1464). He begins this work by explaining “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.”
I'm not sure how that book proved anything whatsoever. Does the mass production of model globes prove earth is a globe? Even if the entire world read it and half believed it, what would that prove except the church had enemies that try to undermine belief in Scripture.
Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant to the point. This work represents the scientific consensus of its time. It shows us what Catholics were taught at university and what virtually all educated people believed. And since the universities were essentially Church-run institutions, it also shows that the Church had no problem with people taking this position.
That is not something "we" know. Some Fathers wrote that the Earth was flat. St. Augustine, however, taught that Scripture is silent on the subject.
That is not something "we" know. Some Fathers wrote that the Earth was flat. St. Augustine, however, taught that Scripture is silent on the subject. This was the view adopted by the Church and incorporated in Magisterial teaching. Catholics treated the shape of the earth as a matter of science, not faith, from the time of St. Bede onward. This is most of the history of the Church. Virtually all learned people, including Saints, accepted the science which taught that the earth is a globe. Nobody was fighting it.
(I have presented the supporting citations for all of this in previous posts. This is just a summary.)
At this point we’re just discussing what people believed through the centuries, not FE vs GE.
The point is that most (if not all) learned men believed that the Earth was/is a globe shape and not flat or snow globe shaped. What Jaynek posted gave testimony to this.
And his point was ... so what? That was probably true in the West due to the revival of Aristotle after the scholastic era. And?
At this point we’re just discussing what people believed through the centuries, not FE vs GE.
The point is that most (if not all) learned men believed that the Earth was/is a globe shape and not flat or snow globe shaped. What Jaynek posted gave testimony to this.
Did the father's teach the firmament was solid keeping literal waters out as a matter of faith? Did they need to? Not sure if there are any stipulations on how the fathers agree on something in general vs something pertaining to the faith.
Did you read the context of that quote from St. Augustine?
Did the father's teach the firmament was solid keeping literal waters out as a matter of faith? Did they need to? Not sure if there are any stipulations on how the fathers agree on something in general vs something pertaining to the faith.Yes. They did. And they did it because it is Scriptural.
And his point was ... so what? That was probably true in the West due to the revival of Aristotle after the scholastic era. And?And therefore the condemnation of Galileo does not include globe earth since this (rightly or wrongly) was taken for granted by virtually everyone. This further shows that it is incorrect to use passages written against heliocentrism as if they showed opposition to globe earth.
Of course I did. Here is the passage with sufficient context to make its meaning clear:
That citation says exactly what I said it did, and you read what you wanted to read there ... as you always do. Your rule of faith is modern science. You've shown yourself to be a Modernist in your misinterpretation of Providentissimus Deus ... the same misinterpretation that led to the rise of Modernism in the first place.And, as usual, you trot out the straw men and personal attacks. You actually weaken your position when you do this, because it makes it look like you are unable to make your case using logic. It may please the people who already agree with you, but it makes a poor impression on the open-minded.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...
He's talking about whether HEAVEN is like a sphere, and therefore that the entire "world" (earth we walk on + firmament) is suspended in the middle or whether it's at the bottom and the heaven is above it. When he goes into more detail, he speaks about the argument that it could be at the bottom due to the denser matter settling to the bottom. He concludes that it's tenable because being center bottom still means that it's center, the implication of which is that it must be maintained that it's at the center.
Could you please produce the actual quote of these "more details" rather than your interpretation of them.
Your arguments consistently include:
Condemned theories of Galileo
Ignoring statements by the Fathers of the Church
Anything but Scripture
Popular opinion
Secular opinion
Personal opinion
Pagan science
Modern science
Enemies of the Church
It does not seem like you have actually understood my arguments. I have been writing about what was historically believed by Catholics of various periods rather than presenting any personal views about the shape of the earth.
Your understanding of the subject is apparently based on the writings of Andrew Dickson White, an enemy of the Church who wished to discredit us. I am not sure why you accuse me of what you yourself have done.
Could you please produce the actual quote of these "more details" rather than your interpretation of them.
There were no objections from the Church when St. Bede, St. Albert the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe.It’s debatable in what manner the use of ‘globe’ was used (ball earth vs snow globe), which you repeatedly and obnoxiously fail to admit. You have an agenda.
AD White tried to make the Fathers look stupid but the quotes themselves are gold.
Just wondering, who determined Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents?I think I thought the Church just couldn't be sure, so She didn't include it in the canon. But thank you.
—The Church determined this in the first couple of centuries, when the book was “found” post-70-AD-Jerusalem destruction.
Are we talking about the famous ones found in the 40's?
—No.
Also, what about docuмents of Enoch's in which the Vatican is in possession? Do you have more information?
—I don’t know anything about this.
The Ptolemaic/Aristotelean model that dominated Catholic history had a stationary (not whirling) globe earth. The idea of a moving earth developed much later.
Well, you won that argument. Not that any of us disagreed with you about the shameful number of people who believed and still believe the false Pythagorean Doctrine of a whirling globe earth.
The only good thing about Andrew Dickson White is that he provided quotes and citations of the Fathers of the Church against the globe model condemned by three Popes. AD White tried to make the Fathers look stupid but the quotes themselves are gold.I suspect that your reliance on White is resposible for your misunderstanding concerning how widespread belief in flat earth was. I have never seen a good argument that it was unanimous or even near unanimous even in the Patristic period and it had basically disappeared after that.
I have never seen a good argument that it was unanimous or even near unanimous even in the Patristic period and it had basically disappeared after that.
It’s debatable in what manner the use of ‘globe’ was used (ball earth vs snow globe), which you repeatedly and obnoxiously fail to admit. You have an agenda.I explicitly acknowledged this in post #130 of this thread. Apparently people have run out of logical arguments and have moved on to making up things about my supposed "agenda".
Crux of it was right there in your quote ... which you misinterpreted due to your agenda.While you may convince your supporters that I have an agenda, I know that I am only interested in the truth, so this comment is not meant to convince me. You are playing to your audience.
And his point was ... so what? That was probably true in the West due to the revival of Aristotle after the scholastic era. And?
Apart from where the Church Fathers are interpreting Sacred Scripture, it means nothing. Most "learned men" today believe that the earth moves. Most "learned men" for a couple centuries believed that the sun was the center of universe ... and that it was stationary. No "learned men" today believe this anymore. Most "learned men" at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine believed that the earth was stationary and that the sun moved around it. Not only that, but the CHURCH condemned heliocentrism as heretical. Very few "learned men" still believe this today. I am reminded of a statement made by one of the Church Fathers about how there's a new scientific theory that pops up every couple years, only to be discredited shortly later and replaced by another.
Really, the only "learned men" that matter here are 1) the Church and 2) the Church Fathers when unanimously interpreting Sacred Scripture. Outside of matters related to the faith, mainstream "science" has been something of a joke throughout history.
Sorry, but the real indoctrination from the film was the push of the false idea that in the middle ages it was commonly believed that the Earth was flat. This was a falsehood perpetrated by Washington Irving in his embellished life of Christopher Columbus. BTW: His biography of Columbus also highlights his prejudice against the Catholic Church.
That's due to your filtering it out with your confirmation bias. Flat Earth was absolutely widespread (and I would argue nearly unanimous) among the Church Fathers.
I think I thought the Church just couldn't be sure, so She didn't include it in the canon.Yes, this is my understanding. I don't think the Church was 100% sure either way, so She left it out.
And why should anyone believe that you are unaffected by confirmation bias? There are four or five quotes from Fathers that explicitly support flat earth. (Even the Flat Earth Trads site acknowledges this.) The rest of this alleged "widespread support" comes from reading the position into other statements.
I think that anyone who claims that either position, flat eath or globe earth, had near unanimous support from the Fathers, is going beyond the evidence. I think that you and Sungenis make the same error, but on different sides.
Not sure what your point is.
These posts below, from the start of this thread, are the reason why the point was being forwarded:
Quote from Quo Vadis Domine:
Quote from Tradman:
That's funny, I constantly find historical proof that Christendom knew the earth was flat. From Enoch, to St. Augustine to St. Hildegard of Bingen, plus dozens of saints and Fathers of the Church, not to mention the digression on the subject by greats like Robert Bellarmine against heliocentrism in the 1600's, a position supported by at least 3 popes at the time, but also the fascinating typology expounded on by early saints likening the flat earth to a house, church architecture, the mass, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark and the Temple. Until the globe indoctrination escalated in the 15th century, the idea that earth was a globe was found largely in the pagan philosophies while the rest of the Christian world accepted the biblical view. So, while Irving was only reiterating common knowledge against the encroaching indoctrination of a globe earth, even if he was anti-Catholic, he echoed the common understanding of saints, the Fathers of the Church, Scripture of course, and supported the reasonable history of truth against the pagan fantasies anti-Catholic lying NASA promotes to this day.
I explicitly acknowledged this in post #130 of this thread.Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.
I think that anyone who claims that either position, flat eath or globe earth, had near unanimous support from the Fathers, is going beyond the evidence.Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.
The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. In these celestial models, the apparent motions of the fixed stars and planets are accounted for by treating them as embedded in rotating spheres made of an aetherial, transparent fifth element (quintessence), like gems set in orbs. Since it was believed that the fixed stars did not change their positions relative to one another, it was argued that they must be on the surface of a single starry sphere.
In modern thought, the orbits of the planets are viewed as the paths of those planets through mostly empty space. Ancient and medieval thinkers, however, considered the celestial orbs to be thick spheres of rarefied matter nested one within the other, each one in complete contact with the sphere above it and the sphere below.
Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.
So the theory of the concentric spheres became popular after the revival of Aristotle in the scholastic era. But what does that mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
This is what the "learned men" of the period believed. They did not believe in some force of gravity that could carry things along in some relatively-fixed orbit. They used the spheres (a transparent semi-solid structure) to explain how the different planets could each have its own path, and then the stars all seemed to rotate together, in unison (because they were in the same sphere).
Here's one diagram of this model (from 1539):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ptolemaicsystem-small.png)
Have a look in the center there. That doesn't like like NASA's ball earth to me.
Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.
Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.
Following Anaximander, his pupil Anaximenes (c. 585 – c. 528/4) held that the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets are all made of fire. But whilst the stars are fastened on a revolving crystal sphere like nails or studs, the Sun, Moon, and planets, and also the Earth, all just ride on air like leaves because of their breadth. And whilst the fixed stars are carried around in a complete circle by the stellar sphere, the Sun, Moon and planets do not revolve under the Earth between setting and rising again like the stars do, but rather on setting they go laterally around the Earth like a cap turning halfway around the head until they rise again. And unlike Anaximander, he relegated the fixed stars to the region most distant from the Earth. The most enduring feature of Anaximenes' cosmos was its conception of the stars being fixed on a crystal sphere as in a rigid frame, which became a fundamental principle of cosmology down to Copernicus and Kepler.
While you may convince your supporters ...You are playing to your audience.Ladislaus has supporters, but mainly those who support truth/evidence. I've never been the science-type, and never cared about space/stars/etc. I only found out about flat earth a few years ago and I only support it because
[spheres pictures]
It wasn't until Kepler/Newton that the idea of there being a solid enclosure around the earth was dispensed with.Both of whom, like Galileo, were science-worshipping, church-hating, freemasons.
While you may convince your supporters that I have an agenda, I know that I am only interested in the truth, so this comment is not meant to convince me. You are playing to your audience.
Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.
I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm) Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.
But modern science rejects their cosmology as well. They most certainly did not believe (see my citation above) that the heavenly bodies floated around in empty space on account of some unseen force (gravity). It's interesting to see how JayneK tries to impose modern cosmology onto the concentric spheres model ... which is completely false.
St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm) Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.
So, do you believe that there's a solid sphere surrounding a globe earth and water outside of the solid sphere? I doubt JayneK believes that.
It was never defined, obviously, but the firmament is mentioned around 130 times in the Bible in various contrxts which necessitate solidity (such as holding back water, opening the gates of heaven, etc.), so, according to the same principle Bellarmine outlined for geocentrism, that something contrary to the express meaning of Scripture is heretical, denying the existence or solidity of the firmament would square right around the same level as professiong heliocentrism, if we follow the logic of the Inquisition.
If the Church teaches that infallibly, I believe it without question. I haven’t studied that question enough to say that it is dogmatic, but it seems to me that it is most likely true.
Yes and no. They're most certainly related. So if there's a ball suspended somehow in the middle of a firmament, that would then have to go all the way around it, what is it suspended on at the bottom? Recall that there was no concept of gravity at the time. As with St. Hildegard, the bottom part of said sphere was most likely solid and resting on the bottom of said firmament, solid consisting of water and Sheol ... and was therefore not inhabitable. You have to be aware of the nuances and not read a NASA ball floating through space into every mention of sphericity or rotundity.
Do you believe in a solid firmament with waters outside of it? I doubt it. Same question I asked Quo earlier.
If you look at the pictures post earlier of the Hebrew cosmology, the entire system most definitely has the shape of a sphere.
Of course I did. Here is the passage with sufficient context to make its meaning clear:Thanks for the quote, yet another proof Augustine believed in a flat earth.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.
Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.
Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.
It was never defined, obviously, but the firmament is mentioned around 130 times in the Bible in various contrxts which necessitate solidity (such as holding back water, opening the gates of heaven, etc.), so, according to the same principle Bellarmine outlined for geocentrism, that something contrary to the express meaning of Scripture is heretical, denying the existence or solidity of the firmament would square right around the same level as professiong heliocentrism, if we follow the logic of the Inquisition.
…..
The pictures of "spheres" you provided show this picture* from a top down view and a shows celestial view of spheres. And how heaven is above that. It doesn't depict globular planets of the heliocentric model at all. Notice that some versions you provided have a "globe" center, and some show flat earth. However, according to Fathers and Scripture, and even ancient Hebrews, the flat earth model is described, which further proves those that added their globe versions are willing to ignore the truth, or worse.
*
(https://i.imgur.com/jhp4iIx.png)
That’s not true, look at them.
I did look at them. They fit the flat earth model, both by Catholic descriptions, and by the pictures themselves. Again, I can see there are attempts to place a globe at the center of some, but they don't make sense because earth, according to Scripture and the Fathers, is at the bottom of creation and has a dome/firmament over the top, which fits the renderings. Where are the details regarding the stars, windows, wind boxes, and heavens on the bottom side? Are they somehow under the earth just not on any of these versions? I mean, you can try to extrapolate and add what isn't there, but what the Church held for over a thousand years is confirmed by the Fathers citing Scripture, not to mention the condemnations of heliocentrism by three Popes. It doesn't seem like a good idea to try to overturn Catholic teaching with contradictory drawings in an attempt to recreate the universe according to the pagans.
The words for describing shapes are usually ambiguous in themselves. It is therefore easy to misunderstand short quotes. However, the larger context can sometimes make clear what model is under discussion. I gave the example of De Sphaera Mundi in which the context makes it very clear that he is talking about the nested sphere model. And we know that this represents the consensus of the time because this is what was taught in Catholic universities.
St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm) Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.
After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)
In all seriousness, don’t you think it’s possible that you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting Holy Scripture and the Fathers?
So in the Summa on the firmament he refers to the fimament as a sphere why wouldn't this be compatible with the earth being a globe. Doesn't a sphere go "all the away around"? How did the father's understand this?
Also it seems Aquinas supports the idea that the firmament is the atmosphere?
"Another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was made on the second day, not that in which the stars are set, but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air. "For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.)." From (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm#article2)
Also here "If, however, we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds are collected, then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere, and from which the rain falls."
I was also looking at the Haydock commentary on the firmament and it suggested "atmosphere"
I agree it does seem there was a common opinion that the firmament was solid like a wall or something like that but from these quotes and the Haydock commentary it seems it was also an opinion that it wasn't so firm?
But doesn't Aquinas say the waters above could mean vapors that "rise above". That seems like he's implying an opinion that the "separation" between the waters above and below is a non hard atmosphere vs both a hard dome and an atmosphere.
There's a lot of information provided here on CI that tell us the Fathers believed the 'firmament' meant both the atmosphere where the stars, sun and moon reside, as well as the hard dome between heaven and earth that held the upper waters back. It was an all-encompassing view of an upside down bowl, tent, or dome over the earth. So it isn't either/or, it's both.
There's a lot of information provided here on CI that tell us the Fathers believed the 'firmament' meant both the atmosphere where the stars, sun and moon reside, as well as the hard dome between heaven and earth that held the upper waters back. It was an all-encompassing view of an upside down bowl, tent, or dome over the earth. So it isn't either/or, it's both.
But doesn't Aquinas say the waters above could mean vapors that "rise above". That seems like he's implying an opinion that the "separation" between the waters above and below is a non hard atmosphere vs both a hard dome and an atmosphere.
Most of the Fathers believed that the luminaries were IN the firmament, as Sacred Scripture states. Consequently, there were debates about how these luminaries could move within the firmament, since it's solid. Some therefore held that the firmament itself moved around the earth. This later evolved into the multiple spheres concept, since the various planets did not follow the course of the stars in the firmament. Others held that the firmament was made of some substance that was solid enough to keep water out, yet liquid enough so that the luminaries could move within it (something like a plasma, for instance). They did not consider that the luminaries might be electromagnetic or plasma phenomena themselves. But the common assumption among all of them in the debate was that there is a firmament that's capable of preventing waters from inundating the earth and that the heavenly luminaries were in said firmament.You said it better.
In any case, they did not believe that things could just float through space on some kind of orbit unless they were in or attached to something physical.
In any case, they did not believe that things could just float through space on some kind of orbit unless they were in or attached to something physical.
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 (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 (http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302d/Fall_2011/Full text - Nicholas Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus (On the Revolutions),_ 1.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.
And what role, if any, did they believe the angels played in the movement of the stars?
I found this:
Attacking flat earth is censored by Church (https://flatearthtrads.forumotion.com/t286-attacking-flat-earth-is-censored-by-church#764)
(https://2img.net/i/empty.gif) by Admin Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:18 pm
Over on Cathinfo there is a very important post which shows that the Church censored flat earth criticism in 1620.
This shows that at least attacks on the flat earth are not permitted.
It can also be used to show that there were Catholic flat earthers in the 17th century, and also be used to strengthen the argument that flat earth is of faith.
here is the link and reproduction of the text.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-church-censors-flat-earth-criticism/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-church-censors-flat-earth-criticism/)
https://flatearthtrads.forumotion.com/t286-attacking-flat-earth-is-censored-by-church
So the Church censored the criticism of Lactantius's belief of the flat earth, a welcome move and certainly deserved.
Why do you believe the writings of an author who is “strongly anti Catholic”?
I paused at this too, but looked closer at what Miser was saying because she understands the argument. Upon closer examination, the Church is the one who censored Copernicus's book 11 different times and the censored part in question was for the criticism of Lactantius for being a flat earther. It was just a surprise that the anti-Catholic pro-globe author would report it.
I never ever trust an anti Catholic’s writings. He’s most likely reporting a falsehood in order to make the Church look bad in the eyes of modern man. Although I agree with him on GE, I would never trust him as a source.
I never ever trust an anti Catholic’s writings. He’s most likely reporting a falsehood in order to make the Church look bad in the eyes of modern man. Although I agree with him on GE, I would never trust him as a source.
Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm
(http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)Here is the section on the shape of the earth:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.
This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.
Frozen Lake Proves Water Doesn't Curve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVGh9SnqOY
There are a number of like experiments on the internet all showing measurements based on earth curve calculators. What I've seen so far is that the earth curve calculators have a 100% Failure Rate. I'm finding it more difficult to refute the flat earth model because these experiments have been repeated numerous times and have produced the same result - nothing is obscured by any curve.