Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position  (Read 57709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: "Farthest"/Re: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2017, 05:00:33 PM »
.
Try reading the notes written by commentators, which give explanation and exegesis for the scripture, some of which were written by Bishop Richard Challoner. If you have an argument with what they're saying, you might do well to re-think your position. Ask yourself for example, does Bishop Challoner say anything whatsoever that gives you the impression that he values the flat-earth model as anything better than utter myth?
.
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth. 

Re: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2017, 05:42:30 PM »
How can it be a throwback mentality when there were Church Fathers who believed in a flat earth? Unless you mean to say that this form of Tradition is outdated. We simply are going back to an older tradition from before the Protestants, atheists and pagans began to rule the sciences and society in general.  

I understand that you are embarrassed by us. As if those who are looking into tradition would want nothing to do with tradition because some trads believe in a flat earth. Well, we are a distinct minority. Most trads believe as you do. And any prospective trads will see that there are divergent opinions regarding this issue, and they can decide for themselves. Hopefully, they will see that our side is more mature and charitable (well, for the most part).
.
There was no "older tradition from before the Protestants" that held the earth was "flat." You're fantasizing, again.
.
Perhaps you don't intend to do so, but all you can possibly accomplish is to give Traditional Catholicism a bad reputation.
.
That is the bad fruit of flat-earthism, in the real world.
.
Of course, it will be an erroneously bad reputation, because Catholics have not been under this mythical flat-earthism as you claim they have been.  There has been no definitive teaching of the Church regarding the shape of the earth, because that is not what the Church teaches.  Things that are observable with the 5 senses are not the stuff of Church definition.  There never has been any dogmatic definition of things that we can test with our own observation today, because that is not what definition is for. So you're barking up the wrong tree.
.
You're barking up the wrong tree, and all you can ever expect to accomplish is DAMAGE. I.e., bad fruit. 
.
So long as you keep it up, you will be doing this with the warning, right here, that you are causing damage. Then you will be causing damage willfully, and you will be held responsible for that deliberate act of subterfuge. Fair warning.
.


Re: "Farthest"/Re: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2017, 05:50:32 PM »
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth.
.
There is nothing to "debate."
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon from various points on the earth and compare them.
.
The only way to see what we see every day all over the world is if we are observing it from the surface of a sphere.
.
The facts are the facts and they cannot be refuted.
.
If you persist in claiming the facts are in error or whatever, then you are persisting in your error.
.
By willfully persisting in your error you make yourself culpable and responsible for the damage that you do to the Church's reputation. So I hope you're prepared for the guilt you're heaping on your own heads.
.

Offline Meg

Re: "Farthest"/Re: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2017, 05:58:25 PM »

If you persist in claiming the facts are in error or whatever, then you are persisting in your error.
.
By willfully persisting in your error you make yourself culpable and responsible for the damage that you do to the Church's reputation. So I hope you're prepared for the guilt you're heaping on your own heads.
.

If you want to believe that it's an error, that's your choice.

I'm not surprised that you believe we are guilty of damaging the Church's reputation. After all, you have said before that it can be a mortal sin to disagree with your view. Which is course ridiculous.

There have been saintly Catholic doctors and theologians who believed in a flat earth. Are they guilty of damaging the Church?

I have noticed that you do not ever post anything about geocentrism, even though you have claimed that you are a geocentrist. Is this because you are embarrassed by the geocentric view?

Re: "Farthest"/Re: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2017, 09:21:25 PM »
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth.
.
So you've read the notes, have you?
.
How about this note (found in Genesis):
.
Quote
CHAP. 1.  Ver. 6.  A firmament.  By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
.
So the Church teaches that the firmament is to be understood as the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. Furthermore, the lower part of the firmament divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
.
This is to be CONTRASTED with your comment and erroneous opinion that the waters in the clouds cannot be thought of as being divided by the firmament, and that there must be water in a liquid form somewhere ABOVE the clouds in order for your flat-earth model to work. (Otherwise known as subjectivism, which is objectively erroneous.)
.
So you say you've read the notes, but you in fact have not read the notes. I rest my case.
.
It's a good thing the Church doesn't recognize reverse thinking like yours otherwise we'd be in a lot worse shape than we already are, in this crisis.
.