Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28035 times)

Tradman · « **Reply #150 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:33:16 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 21, 2023, 09:13:22 AM

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.

That's exactly right. What the general public is persuaded to believe is irrelevant. From the beginning Jayne has tried to prove the Fathers, Scripture, saints, popes etc were teaching globe earth when they weren't. What Jayne is attempting to do now, having been proven wrong about Catholic teaching based in Scripture, is to translate her efforts into support for the Pythagorean Doctrine by way of general consensus of the public throughout history.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #151 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:36:02 AM »

Quote from: Thed0ctor on October 21, 2023, 09:33:11 AM

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.

It's not required that they had to say explicitly that something is de fide. In fact, they didn't really have that term then. So it's a question of interpreting whether their unanimous consensus was due to either their interpretation of Sacred Scripture or due to something that had been received and handed down. You can probably count on one hand the number of times a Church Father explicitly made a statement that X, Y, or Z proposition is "of faith".

It's possible for there to be a unanimous consensus for other reasons ... e.g. if something just happened to be the prevailing opinion not because it was handed down from the Apostles. It could just be, for instance, that a certain Church Father who was highly respected made a good argument about something and everyone went with it. But if an opinion can be traced to a specific Church Fathers, then it would appear that all the Fathers did not independently come to the same conclusion based on something handed down from the Apostles.

Jaynek · « **Reply #152 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:38:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 09:19:14 AM

Did you read the context of that quote from St. Augustine?

Of course I did. Here is the passage with sufficient context to make its meaning clear:
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.

We can see that he is contrasting the main contending theories of the time. When he writes "heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe," this is clearly a description of the Ptolemaic (nested sphere) model. (Augustine was highly educated and would have been very familiar with this.) He contrasts this to what we have been calling here the "snow globe" model, "heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side."

Tradman · « **Reply #153 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:39:01 AM »

Quote from: Thed0ctor on October 21, 2023, 09:33:11 AM

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.

Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).

15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

Jaynek · « **Reply #154 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:47:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 09:25:31 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #155 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:47:58 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 09:38:39 AM

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. You make the same arguments that the enemies of St. Robert Bellarmine made regarding how Sacred Scripture doesn't intend to teach about anything that's of no value to one's soul and ultimately salvation ... an argument which St. Robert Bellarmine rejected.

Did you read that second sentence? He's talking about exactly what I was saying earlier ... basically whether the WORLD is suspended in the middle or whether it has sunk to the bottom (and is therefore a the bottom center). Those are matters the Sacred Scripture is silent about. Didn't you bother to notice that he's talking about the "shape of the heaven", i.e. the entire physical universe? Of course not, because you're reading our NASA ball into everything from Sacred Scripture to the Church Fathers.

Nowhere does he make any kind of sweeping statement that anything of a scientific nature related in Sacred Scripture is of no importance or value.

But when something is clear in Sacred Scripture, as St. Robert Bellarmine explains, it can be a matter of faith because to deny it impugns the authority and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture (ex parte dicentis).

Jaynek · « **Reply #156 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:54:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 09:47:58 AM

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.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #157 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:57:06 AM »

I can't read all of this :/

but there are more quotes from the Church Fathers here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/problems-with-sungenis'-book/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #158 on:** October 21, 2023, 09:58:54 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 09:38:39 AM

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. Somehow he feels that THAT is important, so much so that he spent time on it.

This passage only backs up exactly what I've been saying, that he's talking about the shape of the world including the firmament, and here he explicitly says "shape of the Heaven", i.e. the first and second heaven, i.e. the shape of the atmosphere (first) and the firmament (second) ... the third Heaven being where God dwells.

Jaynek · « **Reply #159 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:07:49 AM »

I recommend that people interested in the subject read Providentissimus Deus for themselves:https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

One can see the Augustine passage I quoted cited in section 18:

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Jaynek · « **Reply #160 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:10:11 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 09:58:54 AM

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #161 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:23:38 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 10:10:11 AM

Could you please produce the actual quote of these "more details" rather than your interpretation of them.

You'll need to play by the same rules. So far you haven't.

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
Statements from enemies of the Church

Jaynek · « **Reply #162 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:31:18 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on October 21, 2023, 10:23:38 AM

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #163 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:41:32 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 10:31:18 AM

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.

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #164 on:** October 21, 2023, 10:47:11 AM »

Just wondering, who determined Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents?

—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.

Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28035 times)

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Miser Peccator

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat