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?

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.

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.

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.

 by Admin Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:18 pm

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

In it the author makes a most remarkable statment:

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

Yes, you read that correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the relevant part:

"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although
completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture
to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I
disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it
is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an
astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those
who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be
surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for
astronomers. To them my work"

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

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

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

I found this:

Attacking flat earth is censored by Church
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://flatearthtrads.forumotion.com/t286-attacking-flat-earth-is-censored-by-church

Why do you believe the writings of an author who is “strongly anti Catholic”?