Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: cassini on June 17, 2017, 09:03:11 AM

Title: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on June 17, 2017, 09:03:11 AM
The heliocentric/geocentric conflict in history came about ONLY because the Bible reveals geocentrism. The Church acted only in its interest in stopping personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Lucifer fooled Adam and Eve into believing they could be like gods, knowing everything. Adam and Eve repented and God forgave them. When Cain murdered Abel and was cast out his lot came under the influence of Lucifer's 'false-information' machine that formed all the false religions of the world.

By the sixteenth century man was ready to accept the sun-god once again by way of its Luciferian disguise Copernicanism.
Observations were interpreted as heliocentric proofs, and Isaac Newton's invented CAUSE for gravity was promulgated by Lucifer's false-information society the MASONS as a scientific fact. Human PRIDE in their own ability to KNOW ALL caught on, EVEN AMONG THE ELECT. Scriptural geocentrism was jettisoned and replaced by human reasoning heliocentrism. Today, even by posters on this Catholic forum, Scriptural geocentrism is laughed at in order that none chose revelation over human reason even though it has more evidence for it than heliocentrism has.

Out of nowhere came this flat-earth theory, claiming it too is revealed in Scripture. Yes they can quote some Fathers, some saints, and some philosophers who also held the Bible teaches a flat earth. Then, like the heliocentric/geocentric science, they can show reasons as to its credibility. However, their theory needs to deny so much it falls into the ridiculous. All space photos of a global earth are fakes according to their theory, the science of geodesy is useless, and astronomical distances of the earth, sun, moon and planets have to be made fit their mathematics and not according to 500 years of measuring and planes and ships may think they are moving around a global-earth when in fact they are going in flat-earth circles. No doubt they will continue to insist their science is credible and that is their position.

Fair enough, but for me theology is the queen of science and in the above debate I prefer the Church's truth to human reasoning that since Adam and Eve has been corrupted to reject the first dogma of the Catholic Church: "God can be known by the things that he made." Heliocentrism led the world to a natural Big-Bang that suits atheism and their concocted science. Geocentrism has no possible explanation other than it was created that way by God.

No doubt a flat-earth would also be evidence for God, if it was true. But St Augustine warned us not to make the Bible say something that it does not lest the evidence shows it to be wrong that in turn threatens the credibility of the Bible. So the Church made some rules. Only that which ALL OF THE FATHERS say the Bible reveals is infallible. All of the Fathers read the bible as revealing geocentrism. The Church of 1616 decreed this was dogma.
Flat-earthism has no UNANIMOUS agreement of all the Fathers. The Church has never decreed it as dogma, so theologically it has nothing to support it except the few who say it has. As yet I have never seen any such decrees..

So, what else is there to help us as Catholics to base what shape our earth is. Well personally I love the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on the occasion of her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady at rest in the hands of the child Jesus.    

I recall the flat-earthers saying the child could be holding the flat earth facing out giving the impression of a globe. If I could I would post a picture of that statue here showing it is indeed a globe and nothing else.

Then the other day I was reading about the MIRACULOUS MEDAL.
I googled https://www.olrl.org/lives/laboure.shtml

In the above I found:

The Second Apparition
Four months passed until Our Lady returned to Rue du Bac. Here are Catherine's own words describing the apparition:
"On the 27th of November, 1830 ... while making my meditation in profound silence ... I seemed to hear on the right hand side of the sanctuary something like the rustling of a silk dress. Glancing in that direction, I perceived the Blessed Virgin standing near St. Joseph's picture. Her height was medium and Her countenance, indescribably beautiful. She was dressed in a robe the color of the dawn, high-necked, with plain sleeves. Her head was covered with a white veil, which floated over Her shoulders down to her feet. Her feet rested upon a globe, or rather one half of a globe, for that was all that could be seen. Her hands which were on a level with Her waist, held in an easy manner another globe, a figure of the world. Her eyes were raised to Heaven, and Her countenance beamed with light as She offered the globe to Our Lord.
"As I was busy contemplating Her, the Blessed Virgin fixed Her eyes upon me, and a voice said in the depths of my heart: ' This globe which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.'


For me then, this is heaven calling and telling, my theological proof that Flat-earthism is not true, and perhaps being used by Satan (NOT BY THE POSTERS I STATE) to undermine the progress being made in exposing SCIENTIFICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY the Galileo case as one of the greatest scandals in history, suggesting the Church was wrong and Galileo was right when in fact ALL THE SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE proves the Bible was right and Lucifer's science was A LIE.

To undermine this breakthrough by insisting on a flat-earth geocentrism would seem to me to be a disaster.


Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on June 17, 2017, 02:10:03 PM
The heliocentric/geocentric conflict in history came about ONLY because the Bible reveals geocentrism. The Church acted only in its interest in stopping personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Lucifer fooled Adam and Eve into believing they could be like gods, knowing everything. Adam and Eve repented and God forgave them. When Cain murdered Abel and was cast out his lot came under the influence of Lucifer's 'false-information' machine that formed all the false religions of the world.

By the sixteenth century man was ready to accept the sun-god once again by way of its Luciferian disguise Copernicanism.
Observations were interpreted as heliocentric proofs, and Isaac Newton's invented CAUSE for gravity was promulgated by Lucifer's false-information society the MASONS as a scientific fact. Human PRIDE in their own ability to KNOW ALL caught on, EVEN AMONG THE ELECT. Scriptural geocentrism was jettisoned and replaced by human reasoning heliocentrism. Today, even by posters on this Catholic forum, Scriptural geocentrism is laughed at in order that none chose revelation over human reason even though it has more evidence for it than heliocentrism has.

Out of nowhere came this flat-earth theory, claiming it too is revealed in Scripture. Yes they can quote some Fathers, some saints, and some philosophers who also held the Bible teaches a flat earth. Then, like the heliocentric/geocentric science, they can show reasons as to its credibility. However, their theory needs to deny so much it falls into the ridiculous. All space photos of a global earth are fakes according to their theory, the science of geodesy is useless, and astronomical distances of the earth, sun, moon and planets have to be made fit their mathematics and not according to 500 years of measuring and planes and ships may think they are moving around a global-earth when in fact they are going in flat-earth circles. No doubt they will continue to insist their science is credible and that is their position.

Fair enough, but for me theology is the queen of science and in the above debate I prefer the Church's truth to human reasoning that since Adam and Eve has been corrupted to reject the first dogma of the Catholic Church: "God can be known by the things that he made." Heliocentrism led the world to a natural Big-Bang that suits atheism and their concocted science. Geocentrism has no possible explanation other than it was created that way by God.

No doubt a flat-earth would also be evidence for God, if it was true. But St Augustine warned us not to make the Bible say something that it does not lest the evidence shows it to be wrong that in turn threatens the credibility of the Bible. So the Church made some rules. Only that which ALL OF THE FATHERS say the Bible reveals is infallible. All of the Fathers read the bible as revealing geocentrism. The Church of 1616 decreed this was dogma.
Flat-earthism has no UNANIMOUS agreement of all the Fathers. The Church has never decreed it as dogma, so theologically it has nothing to support it except the few who say it has. As yet I have never seen any such decrees..

So, what else is there to help us as Catholics to base what shape our earth is. Well personally I love the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on the occasion of her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady at rest in the hands of the child Jesus.    

I recall the flat-earthers saying the child could be holding the flat earth facing out giving the impression of a globe. If I could I would post a picture of that statue here showing it is indeed a globe and nothing else.

Then the other day I was reading about the MIRACULOUS MEDAL.
I googled https://www.olrl.org/lives/laboure.shtml

In the above I found:

The Second Apparition
Four months passed until Our Lady returned to Rue du Bac. Here are Catherine's own words describing the apparition:
"On the 27th of November, 1830 ... while making my meditation in profound silence ... I seemed to hear on the right hand side of the sanctuary something like the rustling of a silk dress. Glancing in that direction, I perceived the Blessed Virgin standing near St. Joseph's picture. Her height was medium and Her countenance, indescribably beautiful. She was dressed in a robe the color of the dawn, high-necked, with plain sleeves. Her head was covered with a white veil, which floated over Her shoulders down to her feet. Her feet rested upon a globe, or rather one half of a globe, for that was all that could be seen. Her hands which were on a level with Her waist, held in an easy manner another globe, a figure of the world. Her eyes were raised to Heaven, and Her countenance beamed with light as She offered the globe to Our Lord.
"As I was busy contemplating Her, the Blessed Virgin fixed Her eyes upon me, and a voice said in the depths of my heart: ' This globe which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.'


For me then, this is heaven calling and telling, my theological proof that Flat-earthism is not true, and perhaps being used by Satan (NOT BY THE POSTERS I STATE) to undermine the progress being made in exposing SCIENTIFICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY the Galileo case as one of the greatest scandals in history, suggesting the Church was wrong and Galileo was right when in fact ALL THE SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE proves the Bible was right and Lucifer's science was A LIE.

To undermine this breakthrough by insisting on a flat-earth geocentrism would seem to me to be a disaster.
Our Lady was standing on a half-globe? The dome.  Further evidence of flat earth.  The world in its entirety is said by the fathers to be a globe, but they explain that the dome, flat earth in the middle, and the pit of hell form this entire universe, which is a globe.  The people however, live on the flat plane in the middle. 
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: OHCA on June 17, 2017, 09:37:03 PM
Our Lady was standing on a half-globe? The dome.  Further evidence of flat earth.  The world in its entirety is said by the fathers to be a globe, but they explain that the dome, flat earth in the middle, and the pit of hell form this entire universe, which is a globe.  The people however, live on the flat plane in the middle. 

For somebody who claims to believe the earth is flat, you sure spend a lot of time spinning in circles.  I've been gone for months--long enough to travel AROUND the world--and come back and you're still blowing the same hot air.  Sorry I didn't get around to taking a bottle of whiteout and an ink pen to correct the errors that you pointed out in the Douay-Rheims.  I'm pretty sure that Luther & Prot Co. have some books worded more to your liking though.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: hismajesty on June 18, 2017, 02:24:06 PM
Cassini,

Do you mean this globe?
https://servimg.com/view/19665577/3

Or maybe this one? :

http://practicalcounseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.jpg
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: hismajesty on June 18, 2017, 02:28:17 PM
(http://practicalcounseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.jpg)

Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on June 27, 2017, 08:59:14 AM

The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White:


St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the middle ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious [sic], they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures. 

     ‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.”

     ‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect [since] Aristotle; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.

     ‘Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all; the God Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as the Pope seated in the chair of St Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding the Pope; the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.

    ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [?], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes] 550AD; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next, Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the sun; the next three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was the primum mobile, and enclosing all was the tenth heaven, the Empyrean. This was immovable, a boundary between creation and the great outer void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat enthroned, the ‘music of the spheres’ rising to Him as they moved. Thus was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.

So much for the claim that the CHURCH held to a flat earth.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Meg on June 27, 2017, 09:58:33 AM
The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White:


St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the middle ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious [sic], they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.

    ‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.”

    ‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect [since] Aristotle; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.

    ‘Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all; the God Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as the Pope seated in the chair of St Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding the Pope; the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.

   ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [?], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes] 550AD; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next, Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the sun; the next three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was the primum mobile, and enclosing all was the tenth heaven, the Empyrean. This was immovable, a boundary between creation and the great outer void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat enthroned, the ‘music of the spheres’ rising to Him as they moved. Thus was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.

So much for the claim that the CHURCH held to a flat earth.

Do you have a link for the above? I can't find anything online called, "The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White."
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 10:01:42 AM
The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White:


St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the middle ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious [sic], they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.

    ‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.”

    ‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect [since] Aristotle; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.

    ‘Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all; the God Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as the Pope seated in the chair of St Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding the Pope; the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.

   ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [?], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes] 550AD; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next, Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the sun; the next three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was the primum mobile, and enclosing all was the tenth heaven, the Empyrean. This was immovable, a boundary between creation and the great outer void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat enthroned, the ‘music of the spheres’ rising to Him as they moved. Thus was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.

So much for the claim that the CHURCH held to a flat earth
The text outlined in blue does not say what the person is posting here.  Cosmas of Indiocopleustes INSISTS that the earth is flat and spends his entire book, Christian Topography proving it.  Also, the fact that it says, " it has become a globe at the centre of the universe." is proof that it was once held otherwise but suddenly changed.  Not only that, it doesn't say "why" it has become a globe.  

When you think you have proof of something, read further, you've shown nothing.  
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 10:11:08 AM
Do you have a link for the above? I can't find anything online called, "The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White."
Meg, the book is called "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom"  It is available online to read for free.  White is a Protestant historian set on discrediting the Church for believing the earth was flat.  You'll find several quotes by Church Fathers displayed in a way to make them look stupid for believing it.  White does not prove earth is not flat.  In fact, because of his antagonism toward the Church, he winds up proving in ancient Christendom that earth has always been considered flat by the Church...But, without proof White comes to the conclusion that somehow, science came along and proved them wrong.  

Here's a link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/505

Chapter II is the one that deals with the subject.

Even Wiki's summation points out that "The church fathers favoured the idea of a solid roof or firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) over the earth..." 
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
(http://practicalcounseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.jpg)
This depiction can be found in many older bibles and has long been considered to be a representation of earth.  It is the literal interpretation of scripture and was held by Catholics for centuries, especially prior to the Galileo Affair.  In his book Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes, it was the pagans who opposed the Church's understanding saying that earth was a globe and was the reason Cosmas penned the book.  The fact that Cosmas fought so vigilantly for flat earth using scripture, and that the pagans used their sorcery and demonic philosophies to prove round earth, one can easily come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to believe a scripture's literal explanation of flat earth.  The first Tabernacle was a microcosm of what Moses observed after God showed him the earth.  The description shows that the pillars, domed ceiling, altar and candles represented those things found in creation.  Church architecture reflects this pattern as well. The pillars of the earth are represented in microcosm by the pillars in Churches. The domed ceilings represent the firmament. The altar represents the flat earth. Bread and wine represent the abundance of God's goodness to man.  The candles represented the stars.  Even the scalloped edge of the altar cloth is meant to represent the oceans.  Cosmas goes into great detail using scripture to reveal a very beautiful landscape that both enlightens and edifies and culminates in a beautiful explanation of the Eucharist, Mary, and God's plan for man.  After reading this beautiful Catholic book, it is impossible to assume that earth is a baal.       
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Meg on June 27, 2017, 11:34:04 AM
Meg, the book is called "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom"  It is available online to read for free.  White is a Protestant historian set on discrediting the Church for believing the earth was flat.  You'll find several quotes by Church Fathers displayed in a way to make them look stupid for believing it.  White does not prove earth is not flat.  In fact, because of his antagonism toward the Church, he winds up proving in ancient Christendom that earth has always been considered flat by the Church...But, without proof White comes to the conclusion that somehow, science came along and proved them wrong.  

Here's a link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/505

Chapter II is the one that deals with the subject.

Even Wiki's summation points out that "The church fathers favoured the idea of a solid roof or firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) over the earth..."


Thanks.

The writing style of this Andrew White fellow is difficult for me to understand, but he seems to be promoting Enlightenment principles. But then he was a Protestant.

In the very last chapter, chapter XX, in the last section of it, titled, "Vl: Reconstructive force for scientific criticism," Andrew White writes:

"If then, modern science in general has acted powerfully to dissolve away the older theories and dogmas of the older theological interpretations, it has also been active in a reconstruction and recrystallization of truth; and very powerful in this reconstruction have been the evolution doctrines which has grown out of the work of men like Darwin and Spencer."

That pretty much sums it up for me. He can in no way speak to matters of Church teaching in any qualified way at all. 
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 01:31:28 PM

Thanks.

The writing style of this Andrew White fellow is difficult for me to understand, but he seems to be promoting Enlightenment principles. But then he was a Protestant.

In the very last chapter, chapter XX, in the last section of it, titled, "Vl: Reconstructive force for scientific criticism," Andrew White writes:

"If then, modern science in general has acted powerfully to dissolve away the older theories and dogmas of the older theological interpretations, it has also been active in a reconstruction and recrystallization of truth; and very powerful in this reconstruction have been the evolution doctrines which has grown out of the work of men like Darwin and Spencer."

That pretty much sums it up for me. He can in no way speak to matters of Church teaching in any qualified way at all.
Agreed. What's interesting is that White uses fascinating quotes from the saints proving the Church believed in a flat earth. He ultimately manages to prove he prefers the pagan science of Darwin and Spencer but without showing how the pagan view trumped Catholic teaching he disparages. 
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Truth is Eternal on June 27, 2017, 05:11:48 PM
Our Lady was standing on a half-globe? The dome.  Further evidence of flat earth.  The world in its entirety is said by the fathers to be a globe, but they explain that the dome, flat earth in the middle, and the pit of hell form this entire universe, which is a globe.  The people however, live on the flat plane in the middle.
:applause:
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Truth is Eternal on June 27, 2017, 05:21:30 PM
The heliocentric/geocentric conflict in history came about ONLY because the Bible reveals geocentrism. The Church acted only in its interest in stopping personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Lucifer fooled Adam and Eve into believing they could be like gods, knowing everything. Adam and Eve repented and God forgave them. When Cain murdered Abel and was cast out his lot came under the influence of Lucifer's 'false-information' machine that formed all the false religions of the world.

By the sixteenth century man was ready to accept the sun-god once again by way of its Luciferian disguise Copernicanism.
Observations were interpreted as heliocentric proofs, and Isaac Newton's invented CAUSE for gravity was promulgated by Lucifer's false-information society the MASONS as a scientific fact. Human PRIDE in their own ability to KNOW ALL caught on, EVEN AMONG THE ELECT. Scriptural geocentrism was jettisoned and replaced by human reasoning heliocentrism. Today, even by posters on this Catholic forum, Scriptural geocentrism is laughed at in order that none chose revelation over human reason even though it has more evidence for it than heliocentrism has.

Out of nowhere came this flat-earth theory, claiming it too is revealed in Scripture. Yes they can quote some Fathers, some saints, and some philosophers who also held the Bible teaches a flat earth. Then, like the heliocentric/geocentric science, they can show reasons as to its credibility. However, their theory needs to deny so much it falls into the ridiculous. All space photos of a global earth are fakes according to their theory, the science of geodesy is useless, and astronomical distances of the earth, sun, moon and planets have to be made fit their mathematics and not according to 500 years of measuring and planes and ships may think they are moving around a global-earth when in fact they are going in flat-earth circles. No doubt they will continue to insist their science is credible and that is their position.

Fair enough, but for me theology is the queen of science and in the above debate I prefer the Church's truth to human reasoning that since Adam and Eve has been corrupted to reject the first dogma of the Catholic Church: "God can be known by the things that he made." Heliocentrism led the world to a natural Big-Bang that suits atheism and their concocted science. Geocentrism has no possible explanation other than it was created that way by God.

No doubt a flat-earth would also be evidence for God, if it was true. But St Augustine warned us not to make the Bible say something that it does not lest the evidence shows it to be wrong that in turn threatens the credibility of the Bible. So the Church made some rules. Only that which ALL OF THE FATHERS say the Bible reveals is infallible. All of the Fathers read the bible as revealing geocentrism. The Church of 1616 decreed this was dogma.
Flat-earthism has no UNANIMOUS agreement of all the Fathers. The Church has never decreed it as dogma, so theologically it has nothing to support it except the few who say it has. As yet I have never seen any such decrees..

So, what else is there to help us as Catholics to base what shape our earth is. Well personally I love the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on the occasion of her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady at rest in the hands of the child Jesus.    

I recall the flat-earthers saying the child could be holding the flat earth facing out giving the impression of a globe. If I could I would post a picture of that statue here showing it is indeed a globe and nothing else.

Then the other day I was reading about the MIRACULOUS MEDAL.
I googled https://www.olrl.org/lives/laboure.shtml

In the above I found:

The Second Apparition
Four months passed until Our Lady returned to Rue du Bac. Here are Catherine's own words describing the apparition:
"On the 27th of November, 1830 ... while making my meditation in profound silence ... I seemed to hear on the right hand side of the sanctuary something like the rustling of a silk dress. Glancing in that direction, I perceived the Blessed Virgin standing near St. Joseph's picture. Her height was medium and Her countenance, indescribably beautiful. She was dressed in a robe the color of the dawn, high-necked, with plain sleeves. Her head was covered with a white veil, which floated over Her shoulders down to her feet. Her feet rested upon a globe, or rather one half of a globe, for that was all that could be seen. Her hands which were on a level with Her waist, held in an easy manner another globe, a figure of the world. Her eyes were raised to Heaven, and Her countenance beamed with light as She offered the globe to Our Lord.
"As I was busy contemplating Her, the Blessed Virgin fixed Her eyes upon me, and a voice said in the depths of my heart: ' This globe which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.'


For me then, this is heaven calling and telling, my theological proof that Flat-earthism is not true, and perhaps being used by Satan (NOT BY THE POSTERS I STATE) to undermine the progress being made in exposing SCIENTIFICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY the Galileo case as one of the greatest scandals in history, suggesting the Church was wrong and Galileo was right when in fact ALL THE SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE proves the Bible was right and Lucifer's science was A LIE.

To undermine this breakthrough by insisting on a flat-earth geocentrism would seem to me to be a disaster.
Catholics' have known for many centuries that the earth is flat; you are behind the times.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Meg on June 27, 2017, 06:44:24 PM

 Today, even by posters on this Catholic forum, Scriptural geocentrism is laughed at in order that none chose revelation over human reason even though it has more evidence for it than heliocentrism has.

Flat-earthers certainly aren't going to laugh at geocentrism. We're with you on that. We, do, however, take it one step further.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on June 29, 2017, 02:33:07 PM
The text outlined in blue does not say what the person is posting here.  Cosmas of Indiocopleustes INSISTS that the earth is flat and spends his entire book, Christian Topography proving it.  Also, the fact that it says, " it has become a globe at the centre of the universe." is proof that it was once held otherwise but suddenly changed.  Not only that, it doesn't say "why" it has become a globe.  

When you think you have proof of something, read further, you've shown nothing.  

It is a fact yes, most men once thought the earth was flat. Eventually however, they discovered it was a globe.

Cosmas of Indiocopleustes thought the earth was the shape of a tabernacle, not round but nevertheless with all six sides NOT FLAT. Flat is a pancake.

I am still trying to understand how the Miraculous medal, described by Our Lady Herself, showing her standing on half a globe can be interpreted as her standing on a flat earth. If she stood on half a globe upside-down so as to be standing on the flat part, then yes, but because she chose to design the medal showing only half the earth, and she standing on the curved half earth, and that is how millions of Catholics have understood it since its inception, then that is the truth.

Similarly the globe of the Child of Prague. To say, as you did or inferred that it represented a flat earth, just as you said the Miraculous medal represented a global earth, shows me that we really are dealing with people whose faith in a flat earth is beyond reason.

Andrew White's description of the Doctrine of Geocentrism is probably the best summary of it I have ever read. I know he was an anti-Christ, but his description cannot be faulted.

Dante held to a globe. The terrestrial globe, for Dante, is constituted by earth and water, and is surrounded by a sphere of air, which in turn is surrounded by a sphere of fire. All spheres.

The three saints in White's geocentrism all understood the earth is a globe. Then there was St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Personally I find no fault is these saints and no amount of silly rejections can make them flat-earthers.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: deutschcath on July 03, 2017, 04:34:55 AM
Mr Cassini,

The error that the earth is a globe has been around since Pythagoras, the occultist.

Anytime that the earth is represented as a globe such as with the Infant of prague, it is the sphere of CREATION, not the EARTH. There is a big difference. The picture posted earlier illustrates this.

The dome is solid as St. Augustine believed. with the earth below it, taking the top half of the sphere of creation, it is as in our lady of the miraculous medal.

I actually read the quotation you gave above. There is ZERO evidence that there were saints that held the earth to be a ball in it. It is an outright lie to say so, I am sorry to say, but this is the truth. I would have no problem reading a protestant if he produced citations.

Here are citations from the FATHERS of the CHURCH, included among them St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Jerome.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

If you are trying to make out that it was the ignorant plebiscite mass that thought the earth was flat while the educated saintly elite thought it was round (communist dialectic- by the way), then you will not have two feet to stand on.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on July 03, 2017, 01:46:19 PM
Mr Cassini,

The error that the earth is a globe has been around since Pythagoras, the occultist.

Anytime that the earth is represented as a globe such as with the Infant of prague, it is the sphere of CREATION, not the EARTH. There is a big difference. The picture posted earlier illustrates this.

The dome is solid as St. Augustine believed. with the earth below it, taking the top half of the sphere of creation, it is as in our lady of the miraculous medal.

I actually read the quotation you gave above. There is ZERO evidence that there were saints that held the earth to be a ball in it. It is an outright lie to say so, I am sorry to say, but this is the truth. I would have no problem reading a protestant if he produced citations.

Here are citations from the FATHERS of the CHURCH, included among them St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Jerome.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

If you are trying to make out that it was the ignorant plebiscite mass that thought the earth was flat while the educated saintly elite thought it was round (communist dialectic- by the way), then you will not have two feet to stand on.

To describe the ball of the Child of Prague as a sphere of creation, a symbol of a flat-earth, just about illustrates the lengths the flatearthers will go to have their way. Add to that the dome of the earth Our Lady was standing on was really a flat-earth is another bit of theological nonsense.

As you should know well, only if ALL the Fathers agree on an interpretation of Scripture can it NOT be challenged. The Galileo case, which your referenced site uses as a theological argument for flat-earthism, I reject absolutely. Not once was a flat earth brought up by either the philosophers or theologians in the Galileo affair. All presumed that the earth is a globe at the time, and Pythagorism was only in the context of a moving sun and the earth immobile at the centre of the universe.

So what if many of the Fathers held to a flat earth, this confirms nothing but that they were wrong.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: deutschcath on July 04, 2017, 04:07:41 AM
Mr. Cassini,
"the lengths flat earthers will go to have their way".  you say. I say in response, that it is simply the reality of things. You are coming at it from a modern perspective, with the presumption that are right and have science on your side. Neither are true.

The Galileo case supports the flat earth in the the aspect of the fact that the earth does not move. And the sun goes around it. You take the what it does not say explicitly (that the earth is a flat disc), and pretend that you can say whatever you like after that. I'm afraid it is not that simple.

If the majority of the Fathers say something, you should sit up and listen. And not be temerous.

I do not deny that the globe error was starting to come in from the middle ages, but you will have to produce serious evidence to say that EVERYBODY said it was a globe.

Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on July 08, 2017, 05:39:51 AM
Mr. Cassini,
"the lengths flat earthers will go to have their way".  you say. I say in response, that it is simply the reality of things. You are coming at it from a modern perspective, with the presumption that are right and have science on your side. Neither are true.

The Galileo case supports the flat earth in the the aspect of the fact that the earth does not move. And the sun goes around it. You take the what it does not say explicitly (that the earth is a flat disc), and pretend that you can say whatever you like after that. I'm afraid it is not that simple.

If the majority of the Fathers say something, you should sit up and listen. And not be temerous.

I do not deny that the globe error was starting to come in from the middle ages, but you will have to produce serious evidence to say that EVERYBODY said it was a globe.

I think we have all heard of 'Faith and reason' or 'Faith and science (scientia).' Our Catholic faith claims that because it is truth, it will comply with all known and unknown scientia.

'Scientia' by the way is knowledge. It comprises knowledge acquired through the senses, knowledge acquired through the empirical or inductive method, knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search through reason alone, and finally through theology.
Unless all four are compatible, or not contradicted in any of the four conditions, then the truth is not present.

Flat-earthism does not comply with all four conditions of scientia. It denies the empirical science of geodesy, earth measurement on a large scale. This science, which can measure the curvature of the earth, has been practiced since the 17th century and fully accepted as such by both Church and state. Such is the size of the earth that this curvature can only be measured over long distances, thousands of miles. Flat earthers use this fact to argue there is no curvature detectable, using short distance photos for their purpose.

Flat-earthism denies the evidence of the senses, what we see. Leaving apart the fact that every other body created by God is a globe of some sort, lending reason (philosophy) that our earth is also a globe, with gravity measured and changing according to the different positions on global earth, which would not be the case if the earth is flat, flat-earthism denies the curvatures seen in photographs of the earth taken from space. This denial depends on thousands of people involved in space flight all supposedly conspiring to keep the biggest secret known to man a secret, not one of them breaking ranks to expose the supposed conspiracy. Next they will tell us there are no satellites up there at all.

Anyway, my point on this thread is that to claim Catholic theology can be in agreement with such denials and asserted frauds is to put Catholic theology in the same class as cօռspιʀαcιҽs or doubts, used to undermine the truth acquired through scientia
Global earth, on the other hand, is totally in keeping with all four conditions of scientia, no compromises or denials necessary in any of the four conditions, and that includes the globe of the Child of Prague and the Miraculous medal, both images that have been backed up with miracles of different kinds.

Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on July 08, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
To describe the ball of the Child of Prague as a sphere of creation, a symbol of a flat-earth, just about illustrates the lengths the flatearthers will go to have their way. Add to that the dome of the earth Our Lady was standing on was really a flat-earth is another bit of theological nonsense.

As you should know well, only if ALL the Fathers agree on an interpretation of Scripture can it NOT be challenged. The Galileo case, which your referenced site uses as a theological argument for flat-earthism, I reject absolutely. Not once was a flat earth brought up by either the philosophers or theologians in the Galileo affair. All presumed that the earth is a globe at the time, and Pythagorism was only in the context of a moving sun and the earth immobile at the centre of the universe.

So what if many of the Fathers held to a flat earth, this confirms nothing but that they were wrong.
Many Church Fathers and scripture take a lot of time describing creation explaining the heavens are vaulted and hell is a pit, that there are no antipodes, people living opposite of each other; and that Jerusalem is at the center of the world.  Beyond that, no one is certain exactly the shape of the world. That up is up, is beyond question in the flat earth model.  That up is up on a ball is a contradiction.  Up is above, not "out there" or "down there" as it would have to be on a ball.  Above on a ball is sometimes up, sometimes down, depending on where you are. Such an excellent foundation for relativity and relativism employed so easily these days one has to wonder how such deception has taken foothold in society, unless of course, the very world they believe in supports it.  Catholic teachings are incompatible with a globe.  The firmament is incompatible with a globe.  There is no such thing as space. Rockets never went outside the firmament.  How can oxygen starved engines operate in so-called space?  How does a vacuum exist without being contained?  
How did Christ rise on a globe?   Which way did Christ rise that doesn't contradict itself? Which way is up on a globe? Science that even a child can understand proves beyond any reasonable doubt that water cannot stick to a ball, let alone curve across its surface when at rest.  Ships do not disappear behind a curve when they sail out to sea, the number one proof round earthers once used but was handily destroyed with greater access to cameras and telescopes.   Planes do not adjust for a curve as they fly, but fly level using instruments that are incapable of adjusting for arc because they work exclusively by keeping the plane level.  Lighthouses, astrolabes, bubble levels and literally dozens of instruments can only work on a flat surface.
The only reason flat earth was not brought up by the geocentrists in the Galileo case is because flat earth comes prepackaged with geocentrism and has always been included.  The discussion in the Galileo Affair was about which model was true.  There are only two systems, heliocentric and geocentric, and the Church condemned heliocentrism.  Cosmas used scripture in literally dozens of ways proving earth is not a sphere.  How odd that the contention today happens to be with globalist pagans using the heliocentric model to enslave the masses with their lies, flinging human beings through space on a ball.  Smh.  The pagan mouthpiece of heliocentrism, NASA, has been caught with their hand in the cgi cookie jar by faking moon landings, painting globes, rendering cgi planets and suspending people in the air via green screens in the fake ssi while stealing billions, but lets believe them anyway!  The entire modern science world is as dirty and convoluted as apostate bishops of the Catholic Church, full of lies and half truths that lead people to believe in a pagan model of their world recreated in Satan's image that makes it possible for the antiChrist to take his seat.

Both scripture and prophecy have warned us that there are false sciences, so there is no question that this subject matters. I wonder which one is false? Heliocentrism or geocentrism?  Round earth or flat earth?
St. Nilus: ...the impious one!...will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.

With the crisis in the Church and the great apostasy proving that we are in the evil times spoken of by St. Nilus, and with the world accepting heliocentrism, literally pounding it down our throats, it is fair to say we know who's lying.  Mankind wholesale purchased false science warned about in scripture because they abandoned God's Word and His Church: 1 Timothy 6:20 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
Your theory rests on a literal hatred for flat earth and the notion that pagan science has to be truthful on one issue: that earth is a globe.  Ha. Good luck with that.  Everything you believe about globe earth is based in the hopes that the Fathers of the Church were wrong, prophecy is wrong, simple understanding is wrong, math is wrong, empirical science is wrong, history is wrong, and that modern pagan scientists who long held heliocentrism are somehow right because they and their pagan predecessors couldn't possibly tell a lie.  Unhappy hope.  
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: deutschcath on July 08, 2017, 05:16:08 PM
I think we have all heard of 'Faith and reason' or 'Faith and science (scientia).' Our Catholic faith claims that because it is truth, it will comply with all known and unknown scientia.

'Scientia' by the way is knowledge. It comprises knowledge acquired through the senses, knowledge acquired through the empirical or inductive method, knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search through reason alone, and finally through theology.
Unless all four are compatible, or not contradicted in any of the four conditions, then the truth is not present.

Flat-earthism does not comply with all four conditions of scientia. It denies the empirical science of geodesy, earth measurement on a large scale. This science, which can measure the curvature of the earth, has been practiced since the 17th century and fully accepted as such by both Church and state. Such is the size of the earth that this curvature can only be measured over long distances, thousands of miles. Flat earthers use this fact to argue there is no curvature detectable, using short distance photos for their purpose.

Flat-earthism denies the evidence of the senses, what we see. Leaving apart the fact that every other body created by God is a globe of some sort, lending reason (philosophy) that our earth is also a globe, with gravity measured and changing according to the different positions on global earth, which would not be the case if the earth is flat, flat-earthism denies the curvatures seen in photographs of the earth taken from space. This denial depends on thousands of people involved in space flight all supposedly conspiring to keep the biggest secret known to man a secret, not one of them breaking ranks to expose the supposed conspiracy. Next they will tell us there are no satellites up there at all.

Anyway, my point on this thread is that to claim Catholic theology can be in agreement with such denials and asserted frauds is to put Catholic theology in the same class as cօռspιʀαcιҽs or doubts, used to undermine the truth acquired through scientia.
Global earth, on the other hand, is totally in keeping with all four conditions of scientia, no compromises or denials necessary in any of the four conditions, and that includes the globe of the Child of Prague and the Miraculous medal, both images that have been backed up with miracles of different kinds.



Mr. Cassini,
You throw around a lot of big words, but it is mostly hot air.
Geodesy, if it based on the assumption that the earth is a ball, cannot be approved by the Church, for the simple reason that science tells us that it is not a ball. Our senses cannot contradiction themselves.
I can see that you are finding it difficult to let go of Geo-centrism, probably because you have invested a lot in it. Prayer and humility will help with that.
We can't have long range photos because of perspective, not curvature. It is sufficient to show that the earth is not 46k km in circuмference, which our "short range" photos prove beyond a doubt. That should be enough for you to let go of this ball earth theory.


http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs



and perspective:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: noOneImportant on July 08, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
That perspective argument always makes me laugh. It requires light to curve at sharp angles and an arbitrary distance away from the viewer, and to turn at a different place if the viewer walks forward or backwards. It also turns at a different distance depending on who is seeing it. Pretty impressive stuff to be honest.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on July 09, 2017, 12:14:32 PM


Mr. Cassini,
You throw around a lot of big words, but it is mostly hot air.
Geodesy, if it based on the assumption that the earth is a ball, cannot be approved by the Church, for the simple reason that science tells us that it is not a ball. Our senses cannot contradiction themselves.
I can see that you are finding it difficult to let go of Geo-centrism, probably because you have invested a lot in it. Prayer and humility will help with that.
We can't have long range photos because of perspective, not curvature. It is sufficient to show that the earth is not 46k km in circuмference, which our "short range" photos prove beyond a doubt. That should be enough for you to let go of this ball earth theory.





deutschcath, would you mind if we keep this thread confined to the 'theological' aspect of flatearthism? There are enough threads to post pictures and videos of opticla difficulties and illusions without throwing them into this thread.

Now let us read another little bit of 'hot air.'

It comes from; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God, the private revelations from heaven to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). The following insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. 

I post here one relevant paragraph.

‘Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men; and the earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18, 2). The heavens in their beauty manifest His magnificence and glory, because in them is deposited the predestined reward of the just. And the earthly firmament announced that there would be creatures and man to inhabit the earth and that man should journey upon it to their Creator. Of the earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights…. God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.

Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: cassini on July 09, 2017, 12:50:47 PM
Many Church Fathers and scripture take a lot of time describing creation explaining the heavens are vaulted and hell is a pit, that there are no antipodes, people living opposite of each other; and that Jerusalem is at the center of the world.  Beyond that, no one is certain exactly the shape of the world. That up is up, is beyond question in the flat earth model.  That up is up on a ball is a contradiction.  Up is above, not "out there" or "down there" as it would have to be on a ball.  Above on a ball is sometimes up, sometimes down, depending on where you are. Such an excellent foundation for relativity and relativism employed so easily these days one has to wonder how such deception has taken foothold in society, unless of course, the very world they believe in supports it.  Catholic teachings are incompatible with a globe.  The firmament is incompatible with a globe.  There is no such thing as space. Rockets never went outside the firmament.  How can oxygen starved engines operate in so-called space?  How does a vacuum exist without being contained?  
How did Christ rise on a globe?   Which way did Christ rise that doesn't contradict itself? Which way is up on a globe? Science that even a child can understand proves beyond any reasonable doubt that water cannot stick to a ball, let alone curve across its surface when at rest.  


What's Up you ask Happenby. Well Solange Hertz told us here:

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Hertz.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Hertz.pdf) 

What's up is as relevant to the global earth as a flat earth. Take the global moon and planets for example. Why don't rocks or dust fall off the underside of it? The answer of course is GRAVITY.

Understanding Gravity: From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy.

For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

It is gravity that allows all on global earth to have the earth under us and the sky above. Christ rose up into the sky into heaven as witnessed by some of the Apostles. That is why all things stay fixed to earth all around the globe. So, all up is heaven, and all down is Hell, the furthest place from heaven.


Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: deutschcath on July 10, 2017, 10:01:06 AM
Mr Cassini,

You have given ONE private revelation, I have given the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium.  So unless you have something more to add, I think it is obvious who is on the right side.

By the way, your quote can also mean the globe of CREATION. See diagrams posted earlier in this thread. Further, even one of the Fathers, perhaps two adopted the error that the earth was round, so it would not be surprising if Mary of Agreda fell for it.

Finally we should be careful of translations. Orbis means circle, and yet it translated globe because people just make the false assumption that the earth it a globe.

I think that trying to tell others what they should put in their posts (when you disagree with them!) shows what a desperate position you are now in. If you can't be humble, then at least be quiet.

Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: BC on July 10, 2017, 12:10:31 PM
Out of nowhere came this flat-earth theory, claiming it too is revealed in Scripture. Yes they can quote some Fathers, some saints, and some philosophers who also held the Bible teaches a flat earth. Then, like the heliocentric/geocentric science, they can show reasons as to its credibility. However, their theory needs to deny so much it falls into the ridiculous. All space photos of a global earth are fakes according to their theory, the science of geodesy is useless, and astronomical distances of the earth, sun, moon and planets have to be made fit their mathematics and not according to 500 years of measuring and planes and ships may think they are moving around a global-earth when in fact they are going in flat-earth circles. No doubt they will continue to insist their science is credible and that is their position.


NASA's astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but heliocentrists have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Nicolas Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Nowadays they have settled around 93 million for the time-being.

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money - for various astronomical works - and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures. Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy - full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” http://ifers.123.st/t129-the-size-and-distance-of-the-sun-moon

Cassini, as I said over at FE, I respect all your work done on Geocentrism.  It seems if anyone is making up distances, it very well could be the Masonic scientist astronomers/NASA. As Astronomer Tycho Brahe observed:

“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”- Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588

Johannes Kepler took over Brahe's work and reconfigured the paradigm that is now accepted for astronomy.  And yet:

After 400 Years, a Challenge to Kepler: He Fabricated His Data, Scholar Says

JOHANNES KEPLER, the father of modern astronomy, fabricated data in presenting his theory of how the planets move around the Sun, apparently to bolster acceptance of the insight by skeptics, a scholar has found.

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. ''Kepler was one of the people who invented modern science,'' said Walter W. Stewart, a researcher with the National Institutes of Health who is helping Congress investigate cases of scientific fraud. ''It's not clear his standards were the same as ours.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html?pagewanted=all

I am wondering though how you account for the solid Firmament above, with your paradigm being essentially the same as Heliocentrists regarding space ball planets, distances, space exploration, etc. etc.

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’.  Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.

....But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor and have seen in the waters only a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, accordingly, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heavens, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters that are under the heavens represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements. Let us reject these theories as dreams and old women’s tales. "Hexaemeron" 3.9. in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 8:70-71.

Unless we are contesting this reality described Scripture and the Church Fathers, how can there be any spaceships, satellites and rockets flying off tens of thousands of miles into space to distant moons and planets?
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on March 10, 2018, 05:09:37 AM
Do you have a link for the above? I can't find anything online called, "The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White."
Yeah right, Cassini seems to refuse to provide links to the stuff he posts.  Yet he wants to claim it has authority.  Ha!, it's just him talking/plagarizing.  
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Last Tradhican on March 10, 2018, 08:23:48 AM
(http://practicalcounseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.jpg)
Why is it called Flat Earth if nothing in the diagram is flat? I think the use of the term flat earth and flat earther is like calling oneself a Lefevbrist or Feeneyite, they are pejorative labels created by their antagonist enemies, why accept them?
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on March 10, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
Why is it called Flat Earth if nothing in the diagram is flat? I think the use of the term flat earth and flat earther is like calling oneself a Lefevbrist or Feeneyite, they are pejorative labels created by their antagonist enemies, why accept them?
Flat meaning, the earth itself is not a whirling globe.  Flat earth includes valleys and mountains, hell below, heaven above, indeed collectively a globe.  Yes, flat earth is a bit of a misnomer. 
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 10, 2018, 12:14:31 PM
It is a fact yes, most men once thought the earth was flat. Eventually however, they discovered it was a globe.

Cosmas of Indiocopleustes thought the earth was the shape of a tabernacle, not round but nevertheless with all six sides NOT FLAT. Flat is a pancake.

I am still trying to understand how the Miraculous medal, described by Our Lady Herself, showing her standing on half a globe can be interpreted as her standing on a flat earth. If she stood on half a globe upside-down so as to be standing on the flat part, then yes, but because she chose to design the medal showing only half the earth, and she standing on the curved half earth, and that is how millions of Catholics have understood it since its inception, then that is the truth.

Similarly the globe of the Child of Prague. To say, as you did or inferred that it represented a flat earth, just as you said the Miraculous medal represented a global earth, shows me that we really are dealing with people whose faith in a flat earth is beyond reason.

Andrew White's description of the Doctrine of Geocentrism is probably the best summary of it I have ever read. I know he was an anti-Christ, but his description cannot be faulted.

Dante held to a globe. The terrestrial globe, for Dante, is constituted by earth and water, and is surrounded by a sphere of air, which in turn is surrounded by a sphere of fire. All spheres.

The three saints in White's geocentrism all understood the earth is a globe. Then there was St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Personally I find no fault is these saints and no amount of silly rejections can make them flat-earthers.
The HORIZONTAL HORIZON is INFALLIBLY HORIZONTAL.
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: happenby on March 10, 2018, 01:35:09 PM
It is a fact yes, most men once thought the earth was flat. Eventually however, they discovered it was a globe.

Cosmas of Indiocopleustes thought the earth was the shape of a tabernacle, not round but nevertheless with all six sides NOT FLAT. Flat is a pancake.

I am still trying to understand how the Miraculous medal, described by Our Lady Herself, showing her standing on half a globe can be interpreted as her standing on a flat earth. If she stood on half a globe upside-down so as to be standing on the flat part, then yes, but because she chose to design the medal showing only half the earth, and she standing on the curved half earth, and that is how millions of Catholics have understood it since its inception, then that is the truth.

Similarly the globe of the Child of Prague. To say, as you did or inferred that it represented a flat earth, just as you said the Miraculous medal represented a global earth, shows me that we really are dealing with people whose faith in a flat earth is beyond reason.

Andrew White's description of the Doctrine of Geocentrism is probably the best summary of it I have ever read. I know he was an anti-Christ, but his description cannot be faulted.

Dante held to a globe. The terrestrial globe, for Dante, is constituted by earth and water, and is surrounded by a sphere of air, which in turn is surrounded by a sphere of fire. All spheres.

The three saints in White's geocentrism all understood the earth is a globe. Then there was St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Personally I find no fault is these saints and no amount of silly rejections can make them flat-earthers.
They "discovered" it was a globe? Based on what?  Mathematics that even modern scientists say do not even work?  Pythagoras is known as the world's first Freemason and an occultist. Copernicus was also an occultist, and his math is all over the map.  Newton, Keplar, and Einstein were all anti-Catholics.   NASA philosophy is 100% pagan.  Why believe any of them discovered something worthy of belief? 
Cosmas believed the earth to be flat in the sense that it wasn't a globe.  The fact that he describes it as a model of earth is already fascinating.  We know God works in types.  The ark of the covenant was a type of Mary for instance, layered in gold, and within it was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb 9:4).   They are all types of the New Covenant, as is Mary.  The fact that Moses was told to go out on the mount and make a duplicate of what he saw, the tabernacle shows that he reproduced a form of the earth, as Cosmas explains.  And why not?  Its a veritable Church.  It has pillars.  A dome.  A veil, that separates the holy of holies from the outer parts.  The shew bread.  The altar.  Can all of this exist and not be a sign for Catholics?  Is the tabernacle not a microcosm of what God showed Moses?  If Cosmas is just a liar, what do the globers say the globe represents in relation to Scripture? To the Old Testament? To the New?  To the liturgy?  To what God is telling us here?
As for the Miraculous medal, Mary is standing on the vault of heaven, which is the dome (firmament) over earth.  Naturally, it would be arched under her feet as it is described in Scripture.  The firmament is described in Scripture as a vault, dome, sauna with a lofty roof, and as a tent. Notice that many many statues show Mary standing not on a globe, but a dome as it is only half of a globe.  Mary is above the dome and we walk around on the flat earth while the devils wallow in the pit of hell.  The middle earth, where we live, is naturally going to be overall a single playing field or surface (with hills and valleys of course).  When the Fathers spoke about the globe, they made it clear they were talking about the globe of creation, probably irregular (as earth is) and not unlike what Cosmas described, which he described to be more like a tabernacle.  In both instances, we have Catholic correlations to contemplate, a picture of the totality of creation.  In what way is the globe said to correlate with Scripture, the Church, the Mass, the tabernacle, or the liturgy?  
I've heard Dante held to flat earth. But then, there is always more to discover.  Sometimes, I think people got mixed up with the description of the entire universe and people actually living on just the outside of a globe.  I know Fr. Pfeiffer made that mistake when he quoted saints he though were describing the globe earth, but who were unabashedly flat earth guys. 
You may not buy any of this, but remember, it certainly isn't globalists asking questions or trying to figure anything out.  They already think they know it all.          
Title: Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 14, 2018, 08:36:19 PM
I think we have all heard of 'Faith and reason' or 'Faith and science (scientia).' Our Catholic faith claims that because it is truth, it will comply with all known and unknown scientia.

'Scientia' by the way is knowledge. It comprises knowledge acquired through the senses, knowledge acquired through the empirical or inductive method, knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search through reason alone, and finally through theology.
Unless all four are compatible, or not contradicted in any of the four conditions, then the truth is not present.

Flat-earthism does not comply with all four conditions of scientia.

It denies the empirical science of geodesy, earth measurement on a large scale. This science, which can measure the curvature of the earth, has been practiced since the 17th century and fully accepted as such by both Church and state. Such is the size of the earth that this curvature can only be measured over long distances, thousands of miles. Flat earthers use this fact to argue there is no curvature detectable, [deceptively] using short distance photos for their purpose.

Flat-earthism denies the evidence of the senses, what we see.

Leaving apart the fact that every other body created by God is a globe of some sort, lending reason (philosophy) that our earth is also a globe, with gravity measured and changing according to the different positions on global earth, which would not be the case if the earth is flat.

Anyway, my point on this thread is that to claim Catholic theology can be in agreement with such denials is to put Catholic theology in the same class as cօռspιʀαcιҽs or doubts, used to undermine the truth acquired through scientia. Global earth, on the other hand, is totally in keeping with all four conditions of scientia, no compromises or denials necessary in any of the four conditions, and that includes the globe of the Child of Prague and the Miraculous medal, both images that have been backed up with miracles of different kinds.
.
These are all good points, but a lot more good points are omitted.
.