Let's see, "Truth is Eternal" or St. Basil and St. Augustine's opinion on whether Scripture speaks of such things. I'll go with real Catholics on this one.Notice that St. Augustine does not mention a heliocentric model? Yet there was still much discussion about this in his day.
I'm sure if St. Augustine were alive today he would be much more concerned with actual errors rather than the shape of the Earth, which doesn't even fall within the realm of Salvific importance.It is really something how you can read God's mind! WOW!
"God's mind" has been revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition. It is then taught to us by the Church. You cannot not claim that FE is part of Divine Revelation when the Church has never even once mentioned it as something revealed. On top of all that, at least two Fathers, which I quoted, explicitly say that it was NOT revealed by God. This is pretty strong evidence which you are choosing to ignore or disbelieve.The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
I'm sure if St. Augustine were alive today he would be much more concerned with actual errors rather than the shape of the Earth, which doesn't even fall within the realm of Salvific importance.This issue is important to salvation. One of the most effective lies of the enemy, to lead people away from God, is the lie of evolution. This lie requires additional lies in order to appear to be true. Some of these additional lies are: earth that is billions of years old (disputing the Word of God), a sun-centered universe (a masonic, sun-worshipping lie), and globe theory (historically pushed by freemasons and currently pushed by the freemasonic NASA).
What do you think the Bible means by "the firmament"?
Good question.That's hilarious! :laugh2:
For some here, they seem to believe that we cannot say what it specifically means, because it's supposed to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. It wouldn't be fair, for instance, to those who want to interpret it in a modernist, humanist manner. In other words, we can't attach a specific meaning, or it might hurt the feelings of those who don't agree. This is Vatican ll type of thinking. Don't be specific. Be ambiguous.
To Prove a flat earth theory to be fact?
HOLY BIBLE scripture is the single most compelling piece of evidence for God having created the flat earth. :incense:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/god's-flat-earth-in-scripture/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/god's-flat-earth-in-scripture/)
Good question..
For some here, they seem to believe that we cannot say what it specifically means, because it's supposed to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. It wouldn't be fair, for instance, to those who want to interpret it in a modernist, humanist manner. In other words, we can't attach a specific meaning, or it might hurt the feelings of those who don't agree. This is Vatican ll type of thinking. Don't be specific. Be ambiguous.
That's a tough question to answer!.
This issue is important to salvation. One of the most effective lies of the enemy, to lead people away from God, is the lie of evolution. This lie requires additional lies in order to appear to be true. Some of these additional lies are: earth that is billions of years old (disputing the Word of God), a sun-centered universe (a masonic, sun-worshipping lie), and globe theory (historically pushed by freemasons and currently pushed by the freemasonic NASA).
.I step outside and look at the full moon and in no way does that convince me of globe theory. And no, I have never read the Book of Enoch.
All you have to do is step outside on a clear night and look at the full moon at midnight.
.
But for flat-earthers, that's too much work.
.
They'd rather read the Book of Enoch, SAY they're reading Scripture, but forget to mention that the Book of Enoch is not Scripture.
.
Instead of looking at the full moon with their own eyes, they prefer to "believe" what is found in the Book of Enoch (not in Scripture).
.
Here we have a liar, who historically claims that flat Earth is not a Dogma, implying that those who disagree with her flat Earth view are modernist and humanist (i.e. Heretics). Then in her blind hatred for those who don't hold her views, even views that are not religious in any way, she says it's Vatican IIish and ambiguous to not be Dogmatic about something that hasn't been defined and is not Dogma.
.
Yes, it's very difficult to answer because the flat-earthers don't have an answer.
.
They have no answer because there is no answer.
.
No it's not. If it was it would be revealed explicitly in Scripture and handed down through Tradition and probably defined by the Church.No it's not. If it was you would be able to point out the exact passage that says "the Earth is flat". St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say that Genesis is silent as to the shape.
People are free to believe what they want to believe it means. What's absolutely for sure is that it doesn't absolutely mean the Earth is flat.
I am still unsure as to whether you are malicious or just really stupid.
It has been explained so many times before to you by me, that the flatness is only one aspect of creation, that no one focused on.
The sphere is what the Fathers attacked, and the sphere is what is NOT in scripture.
Where the Fathers of the Church speak on the issue, the majority of them condemn the sphere. Meaning they thought the earth was flat (there's no other option)
https://flatearthtrads.wixsite.com/flatearthtrads/church-fathers
We've been over this many times. Lacantius is the only Church Father that condemned Globe Earth. The majority of quotes about the shape of the Earth from the Fathers say it's a Globe or Shpere etc... There are even two Fathers (Basil and Augustine) who say that Scripture is silent about the shapes of the Earth and Creation. You are a liar and are so blinded by your pride that you are not willing to admit any of this.
I step outside and look at the full moon and in no way does that convince me of globe theory. And no, I have never read the Book of Enoch.Wow. "I let go of my brainwashing that began with the globe in my Kindergarten class and continued through college, along with "news" papers, magazines, movies and tv."
Have you read the Church Fathers who argued against globe theory? They have been posted numerous times here, and that, along with Genesis, is what convinced me.
I already knew about the masonic roots of NASA, the staged moon landing, the sun-worship of masons which led to heliocentric theory; but what finally led me away from evolution theory, billions of years old-earth-theory, sun-centric theory, and globe theory was an open-minded reading of Genesis. Then I read the Church Fathers.
I let go of my brainwashing that began with the globe in my Kindergarten class and continued through college, along with "news" papers, magazines, movies and tv.
Again, apparently you have never been to this link that you post all the time. There is one Church Father that condemns Globe Earth. It's hilarious how you post this all the time. Obviously with the hopes that no one will actually go to it and/or research it for themselves.It would behoove you to read the threads and know the discussion before you bleat nonsense. Other notable Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth are: Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, Clement of Alexandria in the third, based on the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, both taught that spread over the earth was a solid vault, "a firmament," and they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in." From Moses, Enoch, Clement and Theophilus and many others, Cosmas also reiterates, that earth is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day, and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament."
I posted a number of quotes from Fathers that are either favorable to Globe Earth or tell us that Scripture is silent as to this whole matter and that it has no religious importance. It's in the Library section. https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/)
Wrong.The Church absolutely and unequivocally condemned Copernicanism. As seen in this excerpt from Paula Haigh's article, "Galileo's Heresy". Full text here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/galhrsy.htm Another Paula Haigh article on the subject: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Haigh3.pdf
I am not saying that the Earth is not the Center of the Universe, it may be. I am only saying that the Church did not Infallibly condemn Copernicanism. If it did, one would have to say that the Pope above taught heresy.
The Condemnation was made by the Congregation of the Index. Not the Popes themselves.
The Congregation condemning it is absolutely and unequivocally not the same as the Church condemning it. Also, Geocentrism does not prove flat Earth because a globe shaped Earth can still be the center of the Universe because God is Omnipotent.
Again, and we can quote from non-Infallible sources all day long if you want:The Catholic Encyclopaedia is not infallible either. Further, it has nothing on which to base its premise. The writings of the Church Fathers, scripture, the Galileo Affair, Popes, etc. have made clear their position. At least two more recent scholars that I posted in this thread, Paula Haigh and Fr. William Roberts, show how the teaching is most certainly infallible.
Some Quotations FromThe Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movementand the Ultramontane Defense of Them
"1605-1621 - Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning Copernicanism.
1623-1644 - Reign of Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism.
1655-1657 - Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1644] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical...." (p.1 of O’Hanlon’s 4 page intro.) [Color is my emphasis]-------
"The Cardinal [Bellarmine] begins the paragraph immediately preceding the remark in question by observing that the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is already under the ban of the Council of Trent...." (p. 24. Also p.26: That Council met barely three years after Copernicus’ book was published in 1543.)-------
"...the Cardinal’s opinion was reported to Galileo, most probably by Prince Cesi, in the following unmistakable terms: ‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio alcuno) contrary to Scripture.’" (p.26)-------
"...That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement," was unanimously declared to be "foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the holy Fathers and theologians...." (p.27)-------
"We say, pronounce, and declare that you, the said Galileo, on account of the things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy--that is, that you believed and held a doctrine false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures--to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not in the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture." (p.30)-------
"...Urban VIII, by his decree of the 16th of June [1633], ordered a Pontifical Congregation to inform Galileo that heliocentricism had been declared and defined to be contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures in such sense that his holding it afterwards would be ‘heresy....’" (p.31)-------
"...Catholics of the present day [1885] have become so habituated to Copernicanism that unless they take special pains they can do no kind of justice to the violent shock which that theory inflicted on the Catholic’s most legitimate and laudable prepossessions. Scripture, whether taken by itself, or interpreted by the traditional theology, would not lead its readers so much as to dream of any other idea, than that this earth, as it is the moral, so also is it the physical centre of the visible universe. In Scripture Statements, the earth is no satellite of the sun, but rather the sun is a satellite of the earth. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ whereas not till the fourth day did He create the sun; and then ‘that it might preside over the earth’s day,’ and shine over the earth.’" (pp.36,37)-------
"The principle involves the conclusions that ‘the heavens and the earth and all that in them is’ were made in literally six days (Exod. xx.11), that the flood was literally universal, and destroyed, outside the ark, literally every living substance from off the face of the earth’ (Gen. vi. 17; vii 4, 19-23); that the doctrine of evolution in all its forms is a heresy, altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures. Let anyone read Bishop Clifford’s letters in the Tablet...and he will realize how completely Rome has abandoned the ground on which she once took her stand." (Footnote p.48: And this was written in 1885! Consider what the author would be saying in these early years of the 21st century!)-------
"Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine [HERE (http://www.fixedearth.com/pythagoras.htm)], altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun...this Congregation has decreed that the said books...be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all...."(pp.56,57)
I KNOW. That's my point. You can't provide any quote or citation that infallibly says that the shape of the Earth is flat or that the Earth is physically the center of the Universe. This is all I need to point out to prove my point. My point is that these two theories can not be proven using the Church. If one were to prove this scientifically, fine; I couldn't care less because this has NO RELEVANCE to salvation, the increase of holiness, or religion at all. Yes it's part of God's creation but that's all that's required of us in this matter, that we believe that God created it out of nothing and that He orders everything according to His Will.Well, that's not actually true. I provided the statements and you reject them. The Church spoke. She used the definitive "say, declare, define". Fr. William Roberts wrote a book on the Church's infallible stance against Heliocentrism and Paula Haigh's article specifically shows why it is authentic teaching. Please refrain from saying these teachings are not infallible. You do not know the argument. You are merely quoting ignorant people who say that online.
There is NOTHING INFALLIBLE from the Church that one may use to absolutely prove these two issues (FE & GC). That's why we can sit here and post non-Infallible quotes all day long. They will never prove your point. It's also sinful for you to imply that people are denying a Dogma of the Faith while offering no proof that it's a Dogma of the Faith, which would require something infallible.
No it didn't. Where does Trent speak on the Copernican interpretation of Scripture?Being that Copernicanism stands condemned and was always held by Fathers to be a model against the scriptures, what Meg is saying is that Trent very specifically speaks against ALL interpretation that is contrary to scripture.
Being that Copernicanism stands condemned and was always held by Fathers to be a model against the scriptures, what Meg is saying is that Trent very specifically speaks against ALL interpretation that is contrary to scripture.This means that Catholics are free to understand those Scriptural passages in a spiritual sense.
In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/cool.gif) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
There is nothing Infallible from the Church that the Earth is flat or that it's physically the center of the universe. This means that Catholics are free to understand those Scriptural passages in a spiritual sense. Most of those passages are meant to be allegorical, to convey a point useful for our spiritual well-being. You must remember that interpreting Scriptural literally means interpreting It in the manner in which the Author intended it. There is ample proof that we must not interpret Scripture in the literal sense of the literal meaning of every word.
There is one Church Father that condemns Globe Earth.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/)
For *they* say that the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well‐rounded globe, the earth having a central point.... Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
An Even Seven, you missed St. Jerome's point entirely. This quote shows St. Jerome did not believe in the globe. Because he said, "They" say that the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well-rounded globe...
But St. Jerome finishes with something like, "But what would the land be over?"
Showing that St. Jerome thought pagan musings about the world being a globe was stupid.
This is why people just need to believe the Church's statements because most are unable to read and understand what the docuмents really say and can wrest them to their own destruction.
I did not lie. You lie by saying I lie.It is clearly in scripture for those who have eyes to see. But also, one of the most ardent Fathers who condemned the pagan notion of the heliocentric globe doctrine was St Robert Bellarmine. St John Chrysostom as well. So again your statement is false.
It is exactly like I say it is. Lacantius is the only Father to condemn the Globe Earth. These are nice quotes from St. Jerome but they do not condemn Globe Earth. They merely state his personal belief in the Flat Earth.
You need to stop presenting Flat Earth as if it is Dogma taught by the Church and as if it is clearly in Scripture. It is not. No one is obliged to believe it.
You will need to provide where in Scripture it specifically says the Earth is Flat. You also need to provide the Dogma where the Church says that the Earth is flat in order to win this particular argument. If you cannot do this you need to immediately stop presenting flat Earth as if it is an article of faith that must be held for salvation. You and your friends are lying and misleading people.I will NEVER stop telling the truth. It has been said many times in these threads that scripture does not specifically, say "in those words" that earth is flat. But that doesn't mean scripture doesn't teach a very specific model completely embodied in geocentric flat earth that the Fathers also held since the beginning. Missing the point again and again will not change facts. But it will send you off into another trajectory that leads to heresy.
OR START....Here you go again with the dogmatic flatearthism. There is no teaching of the Church at all that says anything about what we are to believe the shape of the Earth is. Therefore, it CANNOT be heresy to disbelieve flat earth. What you are doing is schismatic.It is heresy to believe contrary to the unanimous teaching consensus of the Fathers and against scripture. Single quotes that seem to say it doesn't matter or that the Fathers are silent, are insufficient because they either don't reflect the same person's other related statements or which are making another point. I have provided only a fraction of what is available and two quotes seemingly denying the entire body of the rest are insufficient to draw the conclusion that it is perfectly ok to adopt a pagan model of God's creation. Consider BOD and the ridiculous attempts to deny what the Church teaches. Now, admittedly, the Church is much more militant and clear about the necessity of Baptism, because Baptism is more directly pertinent to every individual. That does not negate the import of the teachings of Geo Fe, just shows the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute. People can get to heaven without knowing the way God created the earth, at least up till now. But the depth and scope and danger of denying this truth is undermining respect for scripture and prevents people from understanding the beautiful message God has provided in scriptural types necessary for our understanding and for rejecting error. Believing contrary has serious consequences.
It is heresy to believe contrary to the unanimous teaching consensus of the Fathers and against scripture.
No, that's not necessarily true. In order for there to be DOGMATIC consensus, there must be evidence that the Church Fathers considered the opinion a matter of faith and that their position is of Apostolic Origin. Just because the majority of Church Fathers shared a particular scientific opinion, this does not by itself make it de fide.Ok, that's true. Lets look at this subject and keep that in mind. There is no question the Church considers this a matter of Faith because She teaches that heliocentric beliefs are heretical and against the Father's teachings!*
What do Flat Earthers Believe is the Single Most Compelling Piece of Evidence..Indeed, I just so happen to be a celestial photographer. There is no doubt whatsoever... the stars are not worlds; they are lights. The moon is not 250,000 miles away, an impossibility considering I can get detailed shots with my camera. And the repeat movement of the constellations year after year proves they travel in the primum mobile has always taught and believed. My camera proves history and the geocentric flat earth every day.
.
All the amazing photos of celestial objects, taken by flat-earthers, is very compelling evidence.
.
It is surprising to find so many flat-earthers among celestial photographers!
The Church is ever merciful to its flock. However...
Genesis clearly implies that The Earth occupies an extremely important place, while The Copernican Principle clearly implies the opposite.
If The Church is true, then Genesis cannot be false.
If Genesis is true, then The Copernican Principle must be false and Creation must be geocentric.
If Creation is geocentric, then The Earth doesn't need to be round to fit The Model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8jrL76AEUI
Here is the star Sirius filmed on a Samsung Galaxy Edge7. A star 8.611 light years from Earth. Filmed with a cellphone.
I did not lie. You lie by saying I lie.
It is exactly like I say it is. Lacantius is the only Father to condemn the Globe Earth. These are nice quotes from St. Jerome but they do not condemn Globe Earth. They merely state his personal belief in the Flat Earth.
You need to stop presenting Flat Earth as if it is Dogma taught by the Church and as if it is clearly in Scripture. It is not. No one is obliged to believe it.
A condemnation sounds like this: "it is forbidden to believe" or "it is heresy to accept this or that" or "it would be contrary to the faith delivered to the Apostles to believe" etc...
What this all sounds like is a difference of two valid opinions. There are people who think liver and onions taste good. I think they are wrong and Scripture doesn't tell us what we are to believe one way or the other. Therefore, I will not condemn those who like liver and onions. It's a crude analogy I know, but liver and onions has as much impact on our spiritual well-being as to the shape of the Earth and Creation.
St. Basil's condemnation of people like you who "have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture" is far harsher that what you quoted above. He thinks that you believe yourself to be "wiser than the Holy Spirit". You should really think about that. You should also think about the fact that we have at least one Church Father explicitly opposed to your opinion that Scripture describes a flat Earth. This in itself proves that it is not de fide. Not to mention the other Ancient Church Fathers that spoke positively of the Globe Earth.
St. Basil, Hexaemeron: "It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written."
Maybe some of them completely rejected Globe Earth but that is not what you were arguing before. Now you are changing the argument. You said they condemned it. They rejected the opinion and not even that harshly. They did not condemn it, except for Lacantius as I've admitted before.This sounds like a guy who's beat. You have to resort to this kind of garbage. It's really sad what people will do to try to discredit the Truth.God created the flat earth; it is YOU who is beat. You will never win against God. God will never turn the earth into a sphere to validate your faulty science.
Maybe some of them completely rejected Globe Earth but that is not what you were arguing before. Now you are changing the argument. You said they condemned it. They rejected the opinion and not even that harshly. They did not condemn it, except for Lacantius as I've admitted before.This sounds like a guy who's beat. You have to resort to this kind of garbage. It's really sad what people will do to try to discredit the Truth.
God created the flat earth; it is YOU who is beat. You will never win against God. God will never turn the earth into a sphere to validate your faulty science.
Here we go again. You either have a short memory or are ignorant.So by your own statement, that trying to prove it from the Fathers and Scripture "therefore turns it into Dogma". Wow. Its really all there for you. You answered your own question. And proved FE is Catholic teaching because we certainly proved Fathers of the Church used Scripture to defend FE geocentrism against heliocentrism and there being only two models at the time, with heliocentrism condemned, FE is a certainty.
Maybe God did create the Flat Earth. I'm not trying to prove He didn't. I don't care about the science, therefore I can't have "faulty science".
My argument is from you guys trying to prove it from the Fathers and Scripture and therefore turning it into Dogma. This is not the case. There is no Dogma by the Church teaching FE, there is nothing definitive from the Fathers, and Scripture is silent about the shape of the Earth.
Go ahead and try to prove it through science, but when you are condemning people for not believing in FE, this is evil and a distraction from what really matters pertaining to Faith.
Yes, indeed, the point being made above is that the spin-doctor globalists on this thread remain consistent about being inconsistent. They hold no defend-able position, except to maintain the status quo, deflect whatever information comes their way and declare the truth void while they shoot off their mouths hoping to kill the messenger. No matter what the related topic, FE science, FE math, Catholic tradition, it doesn't matter, they just lather, rinse and repeat.
Here is a recap for this particular thread:
1.Globers insist that the majority of saints did not not think earth was flat. When evidence was produced, they deflect and say:
2."The majority of saints who thought earth flat are not enough to believe earth is flat with certainty." So more proofs are provided, but they put up the next deflection.
3.They claim Scripture doesn't say earth is flat. Given more proofs they just hide behind the next bush:
4.They insist the Galileo Affair didn't teach anything infallibly. Given proofs to the contrary, they go to the next hiding place:
5.They say the Galileo Affair had nothing to do with Scripture, the Church or FE, but only moving earth. Besides being given more proofs, also see 1,2 and 3.
Round and round and round they go in their heliocentric-merry-go-round-mind-set. Reminds me of the OJ case. Keep deflecting the evidence while insisting the glove didn't fit.
Now the hardened globers will say the proofs given were insufficient. But either they did not even read the proofs, and/or they never really considered them. The truth is, they are so enamored of the benefits of being "modern with a twist" (geocentric ball), that they can't handle the truth. Guaranteed they don't want to be called stupid the way they do to others. Beyond that, there are some who reject FE for lack of credentials. These types reject the obvious simply because it comes from a lowly place. Once and for all, these slippery tactics prove again and again that entrenched globalists are snobs locked into self worship and human respect to the point that they simply cannot handle the truth.
."The majority of saints who thought earth flat are not enough to believe earth is flat with certainty."
This is true because most saints didn't even waste their time on the topic. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed but it's not a moral issue. If it was, then why isn't the topic in the catechism?Now here is a sincere question. Finally!
I have read your "proofs" over and over again and there is not anything even remotely explicit. There is nothing from the Fathers, Scripture, Tradition, or Church Dogma that proves the Earth is flat. All you have is some Early Fathers saying they believed the Earth was flat. This does not constitute Dogma. You have nothing to prove this is an Article of Faith.The first premise is that the Church condemned heliocentrism, heliocentrism being the long time home of the ball earth. All courtesy of Copernicus, a Luciferian practitioner and Pythagorus and pagan Greeks preceding him.
What you have is a nice big distraction used by the Devil to divert attention away from issues that actually concern Salvation and you are his tools. Wake up and see that this has no importance. Yes we need to believe that God created everything and that he orders all things well. We do not need to know exactly how he did it or what shape it is.
This sums it up. There is no statement because the teaching was not revealed; it is not a matter of faith; Scripture is silent as to the shapes as St. Basil says; this type of information is useless for our faith as St. Basil and St. Augustine say.Again, you miss the point. The Church teaches flat earth because it is scriptural, because the Fathers taught it and not the condemned version, and because Satan's model leads to apostasy.
This sums it up. There is no statement because the teaching was not revealed; it is not a matter of faith; Scripture is silent as to the shapes as St. Basil says; this type of information is useless for our faith as St. Basil and St. Augustine say.Scripture proves the earth is flat and you are too obstinate to see it. :fryingpan:
This sums it up. There is no statement because the teaching was not revealed; it is not a matter of faith; Scripture is silent as to the shapes as St. Basil says; this type of information is useless for our faith as St. Basil and St. Augustine say.I have a lot of sympathy for at least one of the positions you have taken. However, you say that some posters are over-generalizing, but then you seem to do the same thing. You say that The Bible doesn't say anything about the shape of The Earth. If The Bible says that The Earth isn't moving, how is this not a big deal in an age when most people believe it is spinning at 1000 mph and orbiting The Sun at 67,000 mph? If God is truth and Satan is lies, then don't we have an obligation to the truth, even if we don't include the particulars in The Creed? I mean, is it o.k to lie all you want, so long as it doesn't contradict The Nicene Creed? I thought you were sincere, but now it seems to me that you have been trying to goad Flat Earther's into a fight they can't win, because you've erected a clever straw man, not because you're sincerely interested in doing what's right. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to believe you are sincere and just got carried away.
I have a lot of sympathy for at least one of the positions you have taken. However, you say that some posters are over-generalizing, but then you seem to do the same thing. You say that The Bible doesn't say anything about the shape of The Earth. If The Bible says that The Earth isn't moving, how is this not a big deal in an age when most people believe it is spinning at 1000 mph and orbiting The Sun at 67,000 mph? If God is truth and Satan is lies, then don't we have an obligation to the truth, even if we don't include the particulars in The Creed? I mean, is it o.k to lie all you want, so long as it doesn't contradict The Nicene Creed? I thought you were sincere, but now it seems to me that you have been trying to goad Flat Earther's into a fight they can't win, because you've erected a clever straw man, not because you're sincerely interested in doing what's right. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to believe you are sincere and just got carried away.Well said wholefoodtrads.
.Just as God ordained The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima for everyone to believe, God created the flat earth for everyone to believe ,including you; you are not exempt from believing the earth is flat.
The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was a stark reminder for all, So they may believe, because in the prophesy of Scripture, in the last days the sun, moon and stars will lose their regular motion.
.
The sun at Fatima in 1917 lost its regular motion, for all present to see, first hand.
.
Scientists and irreligious pundits had long been scoffing at this prophesy saying there is no way these bodies could lose their regular motion; and I have spoken to contemporaries (you may have as well) who refuse to think that the sun did what 70,000 people saw it do, on the grounds that it is impossible for the sun to do that. So even today, the scoffers remain, those who refuse to believe.
.
As Our Lady said, this was done so they may believe, and nearly everyone there did in fact believe. She did not promise that the miracle would convert the world.
.
Even those who had come with the intention to ridicule believers, when they saw the sun falling down to earth, changed their hearts in a moment from disbelief to belief.
.
But this fact has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it has to do with the regular motion of the sun being interrupted.
.
It has to do with a reminder that we are approaching the last days, when not only the sun but the moon and stars will lose their regular motion, and it is a reminder for all that the day will come when not only the sun but the moon and stars will perhaps come loose from their positions in the sky from time immemorial, and they will all begin to fall to the earth, when God rolls up the heavens like a scroll.
.
This is what it boils down to. In order for these flat Earthers to continue to treat the FE as if it was Dogma, they would definitely have to come up with the explicit teaching of the Church which says or implies it is revealed Truth. There is no such Dogma. There is not unanimous assent that this is an article of faith by the Fathers. The passages in Scripture which they cite never explicitly say the Earth is flat and the ones that they take as implicitly saying it's flat, there are other meanings that can be given to those passages. Pope Leo XIII explains these things well: "To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers — as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us — “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."
It is not appropriate for them to be condemning those who don't believe the Earth is flat. It is not a teaching of the Church. It is not even something that is beneficial for our souls as St. Basil, St. Augustine, and Pope Leo XIII say. I agree that evolution and anything that denies Our Lord as the Creator is evil and would enter the realm of Religion but the shape of the Earth is not.
As for the Geocentricity of the Earth, I don't believe that it was infallibly taught, but I think it's true, at least the Earth is the Spiritual center of the Universe as Pope Benedict XV says: "though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
As for those that say flat Earth is inseparably linked with Geocentrism, this is nonsense. A round Earth is just as compatible with GC as a FE is. The reason for this is because God is omnipotent and He hasn't revealed otherwise.
I don't care either way, if the flat Earth can be proved by science, then so be it. If not, oh well. This should not impact anyone's faith in the least because it is not a matter of faith.
Thank you for responding. I am not completely in disagreement with you. However, I do have two problems with your post. First, this post is inconsistent. You say,
This is what it boils down to. In order for these flat Earthers to continue to treat the FE as if it was Dogma, they would definitely have to come up with the explicit teaching of the Church which says or implies it is revealed Truth. There is no such Dogma. There is not unanimous assent that this is an article of faith by the Fathers. The passages in Scripture which they cite never explicitly say the Earth is flat and the ones that they take as implicitly saying it's flat, there are other meanings that can be given to those passages. Pope Leo XIII explains these things well: "To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers — as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us — “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."
It is not appropriate for them to be condemning those who don't believe the Earth is flat. It is not a teaching of the Church. It is not even something that is beneficial for our souls as St. Basil, St. Augustine, and Pope Leo XIII say. I agree that evolution and anything that denies Our Lord as the Creator is evil and would enter the realm of Religion but the shape of the Earth is not.
As for the Geocentricity of the Earth, I don't believe that it was infallibly taught, but I think it's true, at least the Earth is the Spiritual center of the Universe as Pope Benedict XV says: "though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
As for those that say flat Earth is inseparably linked with Geocentrism, this is nonsense. A round Earth is just as compatible with GC as a FE is. The reason for this is because God is omnipotent and He hasn't revealed otherwise.
I don't care either way, if the flat Earth can be proved by science, then so be it. If not, oh well. This should not impact anyone's faith in the least because it is not a matter of faith.
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Yesterday at 09:50:21 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg585622/#msg585622).Quote.
The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was a stark reminder for all, So they may believe, because in the prophesy of Scripture, in the last days the sun, moon and stars will lose their regular motion. The sun at Fatima in 1917 lost its regular motion, for all present to see, first hand. Scientists and irreligious pundits had long been scoffing at this prophesy saying there is no way these bodies could lose their regular motion; and I have spoken to contemporaries (you may have as well) who refuse to think that the sun did what 70,000 people saw it do, on the grounds that it is impossible for the sun to do that. So even today, the scoffers remain, those who refuse to believe.
As Our Lady said, this was done so they may believe, and nearly everyone there did in fact believe. She did not promise that the miracle would convert the world. Even those who had come with the intention to ridicule believers, when they saw the sun falling down to earth, changed their hearts in a moment from disbelief to belief. But this fact has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it has to do with the regular motion of the sun being interrupted. It has to do with a reminder that we are approaching the last days, when not only the sun but the moon and stars will lose their regular motion, and it is a reminder for all that the day will come when not only the sun but the moon and stars will perhaps come loose from their positions in the sky from time immemorial, and they will all begin to fall to the earth, when God rolls up the heavens like a scroll.
Just as God ordained The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima for everyone to believe, God created the flat earth for everyone to believe ,including you; you are not exempt from believing the earth is flat.
So, you have no idea how God will use the current revival in Geocentric-Flat Earth thinking. ...
The "people" you are talking about is St. Basil, one of the Church Fathers.
There were only a few that expressed their belief in a flat Earth and in turn implied their non-belief in a round Earth. One Father condemned round Earth. There are several quotes implying belief in a round-earth or indifference to the subject in general by Church Fathers.
Your final line is a lie.
When the Church Fathers spoke of the round earth, they condemned it. You won't and can't change that. It is the truth.
It's unclear whether they condemned it as a matter of faith or simply rejected the opinion as absurd for other reasons, including scientific and philosophical ones. In order to establish dogmatic consensus, one would have to read in the Fathers that it's a matter of faith, has been revealed, and is part of the Deposit of Revelation. I do not believe that is evident."The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."
.See, this is where the naysayers think they gain ground. You said: "But this fact has nothing to do with the shape of the earth"
The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was a stark reminder for all, So they may believe, because in the prophesy of Scripture, in the last days the sun, moon and stars will lose their regular motion.
.
The sun at Fatima in 1917 lost its regular motion, for all present to see, first hand.
.
Scientists and irreligious pundits had long been scoffing at this prophesy saying there is no way these bodies could lose their regular motion; and I have spoken to contemporaries (you may have as well) who refuse to think that the sun did what 70,000 people saw it do, on the grounds that it is impossible for the sun to do that. So even today, the scoffers remain, those who refuse to believe.
.
As Our Lady said, this was done so they may believe, and nearly everyone there did in fact believe. She did not promise that the miracle would convert the world.
.
Even those who had come with the intention to ridicule believers, when they saw the sun falling down to earth, changed their hearts in a moment from disbelief to belief.
.
But this fact has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it has to do with the regular motion of the sun being interrupted.
.
It has to do with a reminder that we are approaching the last days, when not only the sun but the moon and stars will lose their regular motion, and it is a reminder for all that the day will come when not only the sun but the moon and stars will perhaps come loose from their positions in the sky from time immemorial, and they will all begin to fall to the earth, when God rolls up the heavens like a scroll.
.
"The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."
"The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."
"...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church."
Although stated without ambiguity using these statements, the 1633 Holy Office shows elsewhere, not only high contempt for Copernicanism, but also insists that it injures the Faith.
This is about geocentrism and not Flat Earth. Why do you keep conflating the two? They are not the same thing. I am in fact a staunch geocentrist but remain undecided about globe vs. flat earth.Sorry, but there are only two models, (especially back in the 1600s). One is geocentrism. The other is heliocentrism. Geocentrism has always been a flat earth model. Only recently, under the mistaken notion that earth had to be a ball because NASA has pictures, while earth is stationary because scripture and the Church say so, is a totally mistaken notion and utterly brand new, largely promoted by the string theory NASA loving Robert Sungenis. Copernicus' model is a paradigm obtained from Pythagarus (and shored up by pagans along the way) and always included a spherical moving earth and spherical planets. The arguments between saints or Catholic scholars against the pagans throughout the centuries proves this over and over again. I've shown dozens and dozens of quotes throughout these pages to prove what the saints have been saying over and over again, but because people read them with the thought that earth is a stationary globe, they never see what was REALLY being said. Preconceived notions are largely to blame.
NASA is a Freemasonic entity gobbling up millions in order to indoctrinate the masses.
The war between the theology of the Church and the theology of Satan has been carried down through the centuries, among other places, within the sciences:
Martin Wagner conducted an objective and thorough study of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and wrote a book about his findings titled “Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation” In the book it is found that the Kabbalah is unadulterated witchcraft and occultism.
Zionist Kabbalah Jєωs hide behind Gentile Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and control the sciences through various arms of the government, including NASA.
Sorry, but there are only two models, (especially back in the 1600s). One is geocentrism. The other is heliocentrism. Geocentrism has always been a flat earth model.
Nope. Those quotes from the Holy Office condemn heliocentrism. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are mutually exclusive ... but there ARE other models. But flat earth is not essential to geocentrism, not scientifically and not theologically. In fact, even modern science has abandoned heliocentrism ... which holds that the sun is the center of the universe. Not even with the solar system do they hold the sun to be central; rather, they consider the objects in the solar system (including the sun) to rotate around the solar system's "center of mass".That's right. The Church did indeed condemn heliocentrism because it is a pagan model that defies the literal interpretation of scripture. The Fathers also taught that the firmament is a physical barrier between heaven and earth, and it is shaped like a dome, or like a tent. None of the representations above even remotely reflect that. The Fathers taught that Jerusalem is at the center of the earth. The pictures above reflect the pagan cosmology and would place Jerusalem in the pit of hell, if earth were a globe. The Church taught that there are no anti-podes, that is, people who walk around on the opposite side of a globe earth, a notion consistent with the pagan globe.
In fact, the consensus is for the helical model. And, to think, everyone went with Copernicus because of the neat little circles you can get for the planets' orbits:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8jBIr9oVaBs/maxresdefault.jpg)
... which oddly enough looks more like the Ptolemaic geocentric epicycles than the Copernican circles/ellipses:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EpSy0Lkm3zM/maxresdefault.jpg)
That's right. The Church did indeed condemn heliocentrism because it is a pagan model that defies the literal interpretation of scripture. The Fathers also taught that the firmament is a physical barrier between heaven and earth, and it is shaped like a dome, or like a tent. None of the representations above even remotely reflect that. The Fathers taught that Jerusalem is at the center of the earth. The pictures above reflect the pagan cosmology and would place Jerusalem in the pit of hell, if earth were a globe. The Church taught that there are no anti-podes, that is, people who walk around on the opposite side of a globe earth, a notion consistent with the pagan globe.
What's so fascinating to me is that I've dumped close to 100 proofs, from Catholic and scientific perspectives, along with math proofs, onto these threads showing that earth is not a globe. NASA however, has done nothing except dress classrooms with globes, pretend man walked on the moon and flash cgi photos while squeezing billions out of believers... yet people readily defend NASA and pagan science without even thinking about it.
Sorry, but there are only two models, (especially back in the 1600s). One is geocentrism. The other is heliocentrism. Geocentrism has always been a flat earth model.Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct that any Church teaching regarding heliocentrism automatically includes a spherical earth. This means that that the decree of Pius VII in 1820 proclaiming that Catholics may accept heliocentrism also means that we may believe the earth is a globe.
No, I'm not accepting anything "without even thinking about it". I'm merely disputing that the Fathers or Church "taught" (as you keep saying) anything about flat earth. All we have is the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism. Everything else are opinions. I'll keep looking at the scientific data, but there's no evidence whatsoever that the Fathers or the Church taught flat earth.Just because they didn't call it "flat earth", doesn't mean they didn't teach it. Cosmas Indiocopleustes' book "Christian Topography" written in 550 AD shows that there was a full blown argument between pagans and the Catholics on the subject. The book shows the monk Cosmas arguing on behalf of the flat earth against the ridiculous notions of the pagans' moving spheres. That alone tells us what former generations believed. As shown in statements throughout this and other threads, other Fathers also describe the earth to be a circuмscribed collection of land standing in the midst of the seas above which is a dome. And above the celestial dome is more water. And under the dome the sun, moon and stars revolve. That earth is like a two story house, with heaven the future realm, above us, as Cosmas, Severian and Methodius taught, all based on Moses' account, which is based on scripture. And that hell is under the earth. The Fathers also denied earth was a globe as St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome and others make arguments against it. Even Protestant historians support all this, chronicled by Andrew Dickenson White in his famous book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom."
Just because they didn't call it "flat earth", doesn't mean they didn't teach it.
Read my text again. I do not dispute that most of them thought the earth was flat. What I'm disputing is whether they actually taught it as if it were a teaching of the Church ... vs. their own private opinion.Ok, but the Fathers were in agreement with Moses, Enoch and Scripture, so why would that make it "their opinion" only? Especially knowing that Copernicus is credited for re-making the earth into a globe? What about knowing the globe belongs to heliocentrism and the pagans defended the condemned model throughout the centuries? That those Catholics who expounded on such things, or argued such things, always tied their beliefs back to Scripture? Cosmas Indiocopleustes expounds extensively with dozens of scriptural references weaving a beautiful explanation of how the tabernacle (and by extension the form of a church) is a type of the earth, a microcosm, perfectly integrated according to Scripture and in complete agreement with the Fathers that predated him. Fascinating that the external design of Catholic Churches of the past reflect this flat earth "type". And fascinating that these descriptions of earth's foundation is like the Church's foundation, earth's pillars are like Church pillars and the firmament is like the dome so often seen in churches. I could go on and on, but the fact that I can is testament to the truth of this, because it works and speaks of things familiar to Catholic minds, even if they were unaware of the symbiotic nature of all of this with flat earth.
Ok, but the Fathers were in agreement with ... Scripture, ...
Ok, but the Fathers were in agreement with Moses, Enoch and Scripture, so why would that make it "their opinion" only? Especially knowing that Copernicus is credited for re-making the earth into a globe? What about knowing the globe belongs to heliocentrism and the pagans defended the condemned model throughout the centuries? That those Catholics who expounded on such things, or argued such things, always tied their beliefs back to Scripture? Cosmas Indiocopleustes expounds extensively with dozens of scriptural references weaving a beautiful explanation of how the tabernacle (and by extension the form of a church) is a type of the earth, a microcosm, perfectly integrated according to Scripture and in complete agreement with the Fathers that predated him. Fascinating that the external design of Catholic Churches of the past reflect this flat earth "type". And fascinating that these descriptions of earth's foundation is like the Church's foundation, earth's pillars are like Church pillars and the firmament is like the dome so often seen in churches. I could go on and on, but the fact that I can is testament to the truth of this, because it works and speaks of things familiar to Catholic minds, even if they were unaware of the symbiotic nature of all of this with flat earth.You've provided a lot of useful information above. I only hope that others here will be read in its entirety.
And all this was done behind the Church's back? By good men? Without approbation? C'mon.
The only thing that prevents knowing is not to delve. There is no way that this amazingly integrated picture of reality is the mere opinion of a few good men laced through the centuries in defense of Scripture but at the same time, not the Church's teaching. The purpose of the relationship of creation with mans' worship of God in Churches before the tabernacle with the "shew bread" are shockingly detailed and what appears to be divinely orchestrated Catholic exegeses that just so happens to fit perfectly with the 1633 condemnations of the counterfeit model of creation.
So we have a few here arguing the opinions of some Doctors while ignoring objective reality, and a 'Catholic' promoting the liceity of heliocentrism.Pope Pius VII decreed that Catholics were permitted to accept heliocentrism. Could you explain the reasoning behind saying that Catholics are not permitted to accept heliocentrism.
:facepalm:
with one particular interpretation of ScriptureThat's another thing. Pagans obviously don't even attempt to interpret Scripture according to their moving earth model. Then again, Catholics who defend the stationary ball earth and call it Geocentrism also don't bother to integrate the creation of their globe with Scripture or Tradition. Probably because they can't.
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
Pope Pius VII decreed that Catholics were permitted to accept heliocentrism. Could you explain the reasoning behind saying that Catholics are not permitted to accept heliocentrism.The Modernism well underway in 1820 does not supercede the 1633 condemnation.
.The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Anyone here or anywhere else who thinks his defense or promotion of the "flat-earth" is doing good for the Church of Christ is only deceiving himself.
.
All you are accomplishing is further damage. And there hs been a lot of damage in recent years.
.
Look at the mockery Francis is making of the Church; well, flat-earthers are doing the same thing.
.
Flat-earthers do just as much harm to the Church as Bishop of Rome Francis is doing.
.
Why so?
.
This is now the first day of the First Quarter moon, which started last night at 1:30 am in the Western USA.
.
Anyone who wants to observe first hand what the shape of the earth is, all they have to do is look at the moon today.
.
The reality we see every month in the sky when the moon makes its first and last quarter phases shows us what the shape of the earth is.
.
And it makes absolutely no difference whether anyone in the past has said one thing or another about it, because we can see today for ourselves what the truth is, by observing the reality before us twice each month. And if you want to include the Full moon phase, that makes 3 times a month.
.
Anyone with two ounces of common sense can see this, and to ignore it puts you outside the sphere of credibility.
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos..
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it..
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense..
To Prove a flat earth theory to be fact?Why should this post caused so much debate? That the Bible, especially The Old Testament, portrays a flat and motionless Earth is not controversial among people who actually know what they're talking about.
HOLY BIBLE scripture is the single most compelling piece of evidence for God having created the flat earth. :incense:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/god's-flat-earth-in-scripture/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/god's-flat-earth-in-scripture/)
Modernism is heresy correct? You are saying that all the Popes that allowed HC were allowing heresy. Not only that, but Pope Benedict XV taught explicitly that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe. There is only one logical conclusion from your "The Modernism well underway" statement, and it's that those Popes were heretics.This sort of thing is the dark side of traditional Catholicism. Some people start tossing out all papal authority because the Crisis has brought it into question in recent decades. Almost everyone who is promoting Flat Earth and/or Geocentrism on this forum is ignoring almost two centuries of magisterial teaching to do so and is placing their own interpretations of Scripture over that taught by the Church. This is no longer about responding to a crisis in the Church but people who have become too attached to their own opinions to accept Church teaching.
Why should this post caused so much debate? That the Bible, especially The Old Testament, portrays a flat and motionless Earth is not controversial among people who actually know what they're talking about.Most of the people promoting Flat Earth here do not acknowledge that "as Catholics we are allowed to do that." They claim or imply that they are the only ones taking a Catholic position. This is both wrong and offensive. That is why there is so much debate.
If you personally want to take those verses as "allegorical, non-binding or cultural" fine. As Catholics we are allowed to do that. But that the Bible actually portrays a Flat and Motionless Earth is A BIG FAT FACT.
Most of the people promoting Flat Earth here do not acknowledge that "as Catholics we are allowed to do that." They claim or imply that they are the only ones taking a Catholic position. This is both wrong and offensive. That is why there is so much debate.I don't see anyone but truthiseternal doing that.
So everything in modern science, technology, satellites, ect are taught in school from kindergarten through doctorate, manufactured using these equations and sciences, used by consumers....even the ability to post on this online forum from a cell phone are based on all this global earth science....So modernistic, heresy or not, qui bono? Who benefits, or what is accomplished by this ultra worldwide conspiracy that the earth is secretly flat?Cell phones are ground-based technology. They bounce signals off towers on the flat plane.
Cell phones are ground-based technology. They bounce signals off towers on the flat plane.Alright...that's just a side thing....forgetting cell phone, planes, gps, internet.....my original question was
Internet runs through ground cables and undersea cables on the flat plane.
There is no globe in your tech.
So modernistic, heresy or not, qui bono? Who benefits, or what is accomplished by this ultra worldwide conspiracy that the earth is secretly flat?
This sort of thing is the dark side of traditional Catholicism. Some people start tossing out all papal authority because the Crisis has brought it into question in recent decades. Almost everyone who is promoting Flat Earth and/or Geocentrism on this forum is ignoring almost two centuries of magisterial teaching to do so and is placing their own interpretations of Scripture over that taught by the Church. This is no longer about responding to a crisis in the Church but people who have become too attached to their own opinions to accept Church teaching.There are plenty of erroneous papal decrees in history to be tossed out without declaring the last 20 popes to be heretics.
So everything in modern science, technology, satellites, ect are taught in school from kindergarten through doctorate, manufactured using these equations and sciences, used by consumers....even the ability to post on this online forum from a cell phone are based on all this global earth science....So modernistic, heresy or not, qui bono? Who benefits, or what is accomplished by this ultra worldwide conspiracy that the earth is secretly flat?Well for one, you can't trust your senses. So, you have to rely on someone else to tell you what is real and what isn't.
Alright...that's just a side thing....forgetting cell phone, planes, gps, internet.....my original question wasThe devil.
The devil.Its like pulling teeth...So I'll ask again....how does the devil benefit, or what is accomplished by this ultra worldwide conspiracy that the earth is secretly flat?
How does the devil benefit?Please answer the question above.
Please answer the question above.I really don't know, that's why I asked in the first place?
There are plenty of erroneous papal decrees in history to be tossed out without declaring the last 20 popes to be heretics.It is always my default position to accept papal decrees. I cannot offhand think of any which I do not accept.
Do you uphold the papal decrees on evolution and aliens to be licit along with your 1820 heliocentrism?
I really don't know, that's why I asked in the first place?:facepalm:
It is always my default position to accept papal decrees. I cannot offhand think of any which I do not accept.You stated that you do not accept the 1633 condemnation of heliocentrism.
:facepalm:OK Smedley, How does believing that the earth is a globe gain souls for the devil? Is it sinful to believe in the vast globe conspiracy? Give me the name of one priestly order, SSPX, SSPV any one traditional priest that teaches about flat earth?...or that teaches that believing that the earth is a globe is sinful?
He gains souls for hell.
You stated that you do not accept the 1633 condemnation of heliocentrism.The 1633 condemnation was not a papal decree. It was made by a commission. Besides I do accept it. I think it was both justified and binding on Catholics until later popes countermanded it.
And acknowledged you accept Wojtyla's 1996 decree on evolution of the human body and Bergoglio's 2014 decree on the Big Bang and Ratzinger's 2009 decree on alien life.
And acknowledged you accept Wojtyla's 1996 decree on evolution of the human body and Bergoglio's 2014 decree on the Big Bang and Ratzinger's 2009 decree on alien life.I tried to locate these alleged "decrees". I found a papal speech on evolution in 1996 that identified itself as a reflection and a similar papal speech in 2014 that mentioned the Big Bang. I could not find any papal statements on the subject of alien life in 2009, although the Vatican did host a conference on the subject in that year.
The 1633 condemnation was not a papal decree. It was made by a commission. Besides I do accept it. I think it was both justified and binding on Catholics until later popes countermanded it.No ma'am. The full binding force of the Church was behind the Holy Office and its decrees, proven by Fr. William Roberts in his book,
I am not familiar with the other things you mention. It seems unlikely there are decrees on these subjects. Not all writings are decrees. I can't give my opinion on them without reading them.
Not proven by the Church Teaching mind you, but by Fr. William Roberts...in his book. LOLYea, spoken by one who read the book. Oh, you didn't read the book? Of course you didn't. The process Fr. goes through is thorough and rather epic. He is actually hoping the Church didn't put full force of infallibility behind the decrees. But the fact that poor Fr. disagreed with the results, finding that it was all binding, made him very sad. One would hope he converted before he died.
The Pope didn't issue it himself. The Holy Office does not enjoy the gift of Infallibility. Sorry, I know you really want them to have it but Our Lord didn't promise it to them.
OK Smedley, How does believing that the earth is a globe gain souls for the devil? Is it sinful to believe in the vast globe conspiracy? Give me the name of one priestly order, SSPX, SSPV any one traditional priest that teaches about flat earth?...or that teaches that believing that the earth is a globe is sinful?
If it is not sinful to believe the earth is a globe, then what is the benefit of a world wide globular conspiracy?
They are presenting it as if it is a Dogma. It is not and could not be. All the other stuff is beside the point when dealing with the Dogmatic Flatearthers because without it being infallible they have no justification for condemning those who don't agree the Earth is flat.
Who is presenting it as if it were dogma? You sedes always take things one step further, in hopes that your false accusations will stick in the minds of others who are reading the thread.I am not a sede and I too have that impression.
I am not a sede and I too have that impression.
No ma'am. The full binding force of the Church was behind the Holy Office and its decrees, proven by Fr. William Roberts in his book,I have not denied that the 1633 condemnation was authoritative and binding. I believe that it was. It should not, however, be referred to as a papal decree because it was not made directly by a pope. I was making a point about terminology.
"The Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine Of The Earth's Movement And The Ultramontane Defence Of Them". Catholic writer Paula Haigh also wrote several articles proving this also. As if the force of the Church's words aren't enough. Reading the Internet commentary about the 1633 statements that say the decrees weren't infallible does not make it fact. Its commentary and *it* is what's not infallible.
Now, why pray tell, would a Catholic try to insist that the actual words the Church spoke, in the clearest and strongest language, is not what the Church taught? And then try to use plebeian commentators online to defend the opposite position of what the Church said?
It almost makes a case for the globe. This world is upside down indeed.
So what?Ok, so we have the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church and we have a priest. You have zero. Except the hope that they are wrong. Good luck with that.
Did the Pope issue the condemnation himself?
Did Our Lord promise the Holy Office or Fr. Roberts that their faith would not fail?
I have not denied that the 1633 condemnation was authoritative and binding. I believe that it was. It should not, however, be referred to as a papal decree because it was not made directly by a pope. I was making a point about terminology.The Church calls them decrees. And so does Fr. Roberts. Who are you or I to say they are not? The Church used the terminology, "Say, declare and define". That is enough. The Popes beyond that never reversed the decrees which would have to be done in order for their statements to be binding. They only expressed opinion based on false information. Heliocentrism has never been proven.
We know that the condemnation was not infallible because virtually all the popes from the mid 1700s onward, either explicitly or implicitly indicated that it was licit for Catholics to accept heliocentrism. This would not be possible it it had been infallible. It has nothing to do with Internet commentary.
The decrees of later popes who said that heliocentrism was permitted are just as authoritative as the 1633 condemnation. Rejecting either is a rejection of Church authority.
Ok, so we have the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church and we have a priest. You have zero. Except the hope that they are wrong. Good luck with that.There are papal decrees and statements saying that heliocentrism is acceptable. All the formerly forbidden works on heliocentrism were removed from the Index. How is this "zero"?
The Church calls them decrees. And so does Fr. Roberts. Who are you or I to say they are not? The Church used the terminology, "Say, declare and define". That is enough. The Popes beyond that never reversed the decrees which would have to be done in order for their statements to be binding. They only expressed opinion based on false information. Heliocentrism has never been proven.The Church does not refer to decrees made by anyone other than the pope as "papal decrees". The word "papal" in this term indicates that it is made directly by a pope. The 1633 condemnation does not fall in this category.
Where have any of those who support the flat earth said that it is a dogma?It is rarely said explicitily to be a dogma but this is often implied.
An Even Seven falsely accuses forum members all the time of being heretics if they do not accept his view of the state of the Church. You don't seem to have a problem with that.
The Church does not refer to decrees made by anyone other than the pope as "papal decrees". The word "papal" in this term indicates that it is made directly by a pope. The 1633 condemnation does not fall in this category.
Yes, popes beyond that did reverse the decrees against heliocentrism. Pope Pius VII explicitly used the word "decree" to state that Catholics could hold heliocentrism. It was a clear binding and authoritative statement and you are apparently rejecting it.
It is rarely said explicitily to be a dogma but this is often implied.
It bothers me most of the time when posters refer to other posters as heretics. If I said something every time it happened, I would not have time to post about anything else. My silence does not indicate that I do not have a problem with it.
Where is an official copy of the decree that states that Catholics can hold the heliocentric view?
In doing a google search, all I came up with is a mention of a decree by Pope Pius Vll in which he said that books which describe heliocentrism could be published.
Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
Original Latin source: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301.
http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)
There is no such thing as ‘dogmatic flatearthers’ that is the lamest term I’ve heard in awhile.
The earth is either flat or it’s not, therefore an objective truth is to be found somewhere. If it’s not flat and stationary, then according to ‘science people’ we are on a spinning ball flying through endless space. (Sungenis’ theory is too full of holes to be considered here) So which is it? Hmm, kinda does matter, it’s the ground you walk on everyday right? It’s the ground Jesus Walked on as well.
Those who say it doesn’t matter ‘it could be flat or round who cares’, do not have a real love of truth, and they certainly don’t belong in a discussion about the facts surrounding this topic, only to continually pipe in to say ‘it doesn’t matter’. Maybe it’s time to stop with the opinions on which pope said what and whether or not it was infallible and start looking into the objective truths, readily available, on the very foundation of your physical world.
There is a mountain of facts and evidence presented not only here but so many other places, that this is a
‘Globe Deception’ and it is meant for our undoing. Who would be behind a deception so monstrous and meant for our destruction? I think that was covered here already.
I want no part of this deception and refuse to pass it on to my children and the next generations to come.
Immaculate Heart of Mary intercede for Us!
I asked for an official copy of the decree to which you were referring. That's not what you provided.What makes you think this is not official? It can also be found on the Vatican Observatory site, along with the explanation:
The 1820 decree under Pope Pius VII removing all remaining prohibitions against the Copernican system. This arose from the request of Fr. Giuseppe Settele for an imprimatur on his book Elementi di ottica e di astronomia (Elements of Optics and Astronomy) (https://books.google.com/books?id=cH2ByRltWLoC&printsec=frontcover), which referenced Earth’s motion. The request was denied; Settele appealed to the Pope.http://www.vofoundation.org/faith-and-science/galileo/historical-events/ (http://www.vofoundation.org/faith-and-science/galileo/historical-events/)
This translation is from the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science (Inters.org) (http://inters.org/), which is edited by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research, operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, and directed by Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti. The translation is from the original Latin provided in W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernico, Galilei e la chiesa : fine della controversia (1820) : gli atti del Sant’Uffizio {i.e. Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office} (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301.
Implied how? Because we do not sit down and shut up about the flat earth, as you and others would like us to?Just earlier today you yourself used the phrase "problems associated with the globe earth theory, regarding its promotion of secular humanism". (Post #156 of this thread)
Your silence does indicate that you do not have a problem with An Even Seven calling other forum members heretics, especially since you make false accusations against those who support the flat earth, as he does.
I don't accuse forum members of being heretics all the time. Just those who obstinately hold the heretical opinion that heretics are Catholic. Not being a Sedevacantist does not make one a heretic.
There are papal decrees and statements saying that heliocentrism is acceptable. All the formerly forbidden works on heliocentrism were removed from the Index. How is this "zero"?As shown in the threads here, the Index maintains its moral force, according to Card Ottaviani and even Benedict XVI.
http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)
There is no such thing as ‘dogmatic flatearthers’ that is the lamest term I’ve heard in awhile.
As shown in the threads here, the Index maintains its moral force, according to Card Ottaviani and even Benedict XVI.When a book is removed from the Index that indicates that it is permitted at that point. That is part of the "moral force" of the Index.
Do we have the original of this alleged decree? Based on this second-hand source, I would question its authority. You've said it is "binding". Well, binding in the sense that it must be considered permitted (once the actual source is verified) and that Catholics who are geocentrists cannot consider heliocentrists to be non-Catholic. It falls well short of endorsing heliocentrism.I understood this docuмent itself to be the public statement of the decree. (The John Daly paper seemed to be referring to this decree in its chronology of events.)
When a book is removed from the Index that indicates that it is permitted at that point. That is part of the "moral force" of the Index.The Index became an albatross and was a point of contention by the enemies of the Church. Basically the Pope was pressured. Why any Pope would "remove" anything from the Index is anyone's guess, but more importantly, it must be addressed that the Pope could only remove things once they had been corrected. That never happened, yet he unbound the consciences of men in the matter. So, what do we do with that? I guess there's a little more hope for those who cannot understand that an indoctrination was foisted on them and God permitted this for their sake. Kind of like Moses permitting divorce for a time. However, Scripture tells us that Moses permitted it because it was out of the hardness of their hearts. IMHO we ought to respect tradition and refuse the option that resulted from a modernization of the Church and her prelates. There is no need to find ourselves pining over a dead subject like heliocentrism. It is a retarded pagan doctrine that continues to usher in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Ain't nobody got time for that.
If books were eternally forbidden once they had been put on the Index, what would be the point of removing them?
The Index became an albatross and was a point of contention by the enemies of the Church. Basically the Pope was pressured. Why any Pope would "remove" anything from the Index is anyone's guess, but more importantly, it must be addressed that the Pope could only remove things once they had been corrected. That never happened, yet he unbound the consciences of men in the matter. So, what do we do with that? I guess there's a little more hope for those who cannot understand that an indoctrination was foisted on them and God permitted this for their sake. Kind of like Moses permitting divorce for a time. However, Scripture tells us that Moses permitted it because it was out of the hardness of their hearts. IMHO we ought to respect tradition and refuse the option that resulted from a modernization of the Church and her prelates. There is no need to find ourselves pining over a dead subject like heliocentrism. It is a retarded pagan doctrine that continues to usher in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Ain't nobody got time for that.So the Index has "moral force" when a book you disapprove of is put on it, but when the book is removed you want to explain it away?
So the Index has "moral force" when a book you disapprove of is put on it, but when the book is removed you want to explain it away?No. I believe it maintains its moral force. I merely hypothesized how we might understand what happened. I don't really know. But it doesn't matter if the scientific understanding changed. We know now that was based on a lie. Further, the Church cannot change. The model is condemned even if the Index doesn't bind people per se. That doesn't mean they are not bound to get to the bottom of what happened when dealing with the problem, something many people simply don't do because it doesn't present itself. Those people may be freed of guilt, it seems, always depending on their own sanctity obviously. However, those who poke their nose into this and ask questions or who find themselves faced with it, should accept the Church's teachings because She bothered to condemn it. Its really quite simple.
The scientific understanding of heliocentrism had changed by the time the books were removed from the Index. Most likely that is why the Pope had it done, even without the corrections being added to the books.
At any rate, there are no grounds for claiming that Catholics may not believe heliocentrism.
You're making distinctions where there's no need.
Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes. She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?
Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes. She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.Par for the course...though a rude and utterly untrue assessment. I'm a cradle Catholic faithful to tradition, proven by my loyalty to the teachings of the Fathers, to Scripture and the Church at great inconvenience to myself for the derision shown me from Catholics who do not understand.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?
I'm not sure how that's "dishonest" or "deceptive". She's made it quite clear even here on CI what she thinks of flat earthers. She's questioned whether they're Catholic because of their rejection of a certain teaching by Leo XIII. So there's nothing here that's new ... and I've never been on SD. Now, you may disagree with her, but she's not being dishonest or deceptive in any way.I disagree.
So why the influx of all the new Flat Earth supporters here on CI?
Just earlier today you yourself used the phrase "problems associated with the globe earth theory, regarding its promotion of secular humanism". (Post #156 of this thread)
This is clearly implies that Catholics may not hold that the earth is a globe because to do so promotes an erroneous, anti-Catholic belief system. You are implying that the only position that Catholics may hold without sinning is that the earth is flat. You fall short of explicitly claiming that flat earth is a Church dogma, but your posts are full of comments that imply it is the only licit position for Catholics. This was just one example.
If you insist on reading into my silence the opposite of what I have told you I actually think, I cannot stop you.
I disagree.
Posting here to mock people behind their backs in another venue, where they cannot defend themselves is very dishonest.
There is an influx of flat earthers worlwide since 2015.
The whole world is waking up to this massive deception.
Jaynek seeks to oppress those awakenings.
Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes. She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?
Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes. She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.I am quoting my entire SD post on the subject so that everyone may judge for himself whether Smedley has fairly characterized it:
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?
Quote from: Livenotonevil on November 30, 2017, 09:59:41 AM (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15386.msg424361#msg424361)https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15386.135 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15386.135) (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137)QuoteWas there a prominent theological opinion supported by the Bible that the Earth was flat?
I recently had a debate with the Cathinfo Flatearthers (perhaps half a dozen people - most there disagree with them) about the historical and theological aspects of the question.
The standard understanding is that many of the Church Fathers believed in a flat earth but over time a consensus developed among Catholics that the earth is spherical. By the time universities began being established in the Medieval period, virtually everyone accepted the sphere shape and this is what was taught. It is generally recognized that St Thomas Aquinas and St Albert the Great believed the earth is a globe.
The Flatearthers I talked to denied the accepted view and claimed that flat earth is the Catholic position taught by Scripture and the Fathers and held until the Reformation introduced it's errors.
They seemed to think they were better Catholics for believing in flat earth and one even referred to belief in a globe earth as heresy.
They tried to prove their position by using quotes from Scripture and the Fathers. When shown a papal encyclical which explicitly stated that these should not be used to determine natural science, they still clung to their view that they were the ones holding the real Catholic position.
I do not know much about science but in the fields I do know about I could see that these people were wilfully ignorant and they rejected Church teaching on Scriptural exegesis. If anyone wishes to see the thread it is here - https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137)
I'm not sure how that's "dishonest" or "deceptive". She's made it quite clear even here on CI what she thinks of flat earthers. She's questioned whether they're Catholic because of their rejection of a certain teaching by Leo XIII. So there's nothing here that's new ... and I've never been on SD. Now, you may disagree with her, but she's not being dishonest or deceptive in any way.As matter of personal policy I avoid questioning whether people are Catholic. I have no idea how culpable people are for holding erroneous beliefs. I try to identify ideas as incompatible with Catholicism without judging the souls of those who hold the ideas. So I hope I did not really question whether they are Catholic and you just misunderstood me. I do not recall what I wrote well enough to say either way.
I might see your point if she wasn't actually mocking them here also. Why can't flat earthers post on SD themselves? Or is flat earthism banned over there?I have tried to avoid mocking them in either forum, although I suspect I have sometimes become too irritated to always succeed at this.
It is laughable that the heliocentrists here claim to see the revolution in the Church, but fail to perceive it around heliocentrism.
Fascinating stupidity.
It's not defunct.
Google ablf3 and tapatalk.
I rarely visit Suscipe Domine, but I'm not surprised that she would say that. She has a grudge against those CATHOLICS who believe in a flat earth.
If only she would take the time to actually look into the flat earth, without any pre-conceived anti-flat earth ideas from her husband or whoever, then she might find that FE makes sense.
I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint. Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting. I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.
I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint. Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting. I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.Do you find the Bible's other literal dogmatic truths equally off-putting?
So, Smedley, looks like you've been slandering JayneK. She's owed a retraction and an apology. I saw her post and you grossly mischaracterized it.I certainly did not.
Furthermore, why is a non-Resistance supporter who thinks flat earth is not true, not Biblical, who doesn't even adhere to geocentrism, and considers the whole topic unimportant to one's salvation even pontificating about it here on CI?Exactly! The same thing goes for Seven; it's just obnoxious!
Did she tell you about her talking about flat earthers on another board? No, she didn't. I told you. That's dishonest. And she would not have told you either.
So, enough is enough with the unserious, uneducated opinions of a woman who admits she knows little about it and also doesn't even care.
Leave the flat earth discussion to those who have at least taken the time to study it.
Just earlier today you yourself used the phrase "problems associated with the globe earth theory, regarding its promotion of secular humanism". (Post #156 of this thread)This post from Jaynek is very telling. She's reading way too much into posts. I mean she attacks Meg of all people. How ridiculous is that! Meg always goes out of her way to be polite and nice to everyone. You would have to have very thin skin to be offended by Meg. And I'm sorry, but Seven is just as bad.
This is clearly implies that Catholics may not hold that the earth is a globe because to do so promotes an erroneous, anti-Catholic belief system. You are implying that the only position that Catholics may hold without sinning is that the earth is flat. You fall short of explicitly claiming that flat earth is a Church dogma, but your posts are full of comments that imply it is the only licit position for Catholics. This was just one example.
If you insist on reading into my silence the opposite of what I have told you I actually think, I cannot stop you.
Reading the above post from Jaynek and Meg, it seems clear that Meg is trying to say that Heliocentrism led to a loss of faith among many Catholics. This of course is a matter of historical opinion, but it is an opinion that is held by many historians. I mean, if The Bible depicts a flat stationary Earth (which isn't even controversial, sorry if you didn't know that, but it does), then many people would reject it, based on a "scientific" belief that the Earth is a spinning globe.It is not Heliocentrism that leads to a loss of faith, but rather trying to use exegetical principles other than those taught by the Church. When people try to use the Bible to determine matters of physical science, it is inevitable that there be apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, as well as within Scripture itself, because that is not its intended meaning. When people accept the Church teaching that Scripture does not intend to speak of physical science, there will never be such conflicts. There will never even be a temptation to reject Scripture for the reason you suggest. The Church, in her wisdom, long ago solved this problem. This exegetical principle goes back to St. Basil and St. Augustine and, starting with Leo XIII, appears in the magisterial writing of several popes.
That's not true. I have Popes. Here's one:
Pope Benedict XV - 1921, In Praeclara Summorum, On Dante:"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment."
Jaynek,Who gets to decide when popes have made mistakes? Who has the authority to say that about all the encyclicals teaching that Scripture is not intended and should not be used as teaching on science? How does one justify saying that multiple popes authoritatively teaching on how to interpret Scripture got it wrong? And how does one prevent everybody from throwing out the teachings they do not like by claiming that "Popes can make mistakes"?
Not everything before VII was perfect.
The Popes can make mistakes.
It is not Heliocentrism that leads to a loss of faith, but rather trying to use exegetical principles other than those taught by the Church. When people try to use the Bible to determine matters of physical science, it is inevitable that there be apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, as well as within Scripture itself, because that is not its intended meaning. When people accept the Church teaching that Scripture does not intend to speak of physical science, there will never be such conflicts.What ignorant remarks!
I mean, Jaynek judges people, not for what they actually say, but for what she takes great pains to read into their posts. Reading the above post from Jaynek and Meg, it seems clear that Meg is trying to say that Heliocentrism led to a loss of faith among many Catholics. This of course is a matter of historical opinion, but it is an opinion that is held by many historians. I mean, if The Bible depicts a flat stationary Earth (which isn't even controversial, sorry if you didn't know that, but it does), then many people would reject it, based on a "scientific" belief that the Earth is a spinning globe.
What ignorant remarks!As I wrote in the other thread, the Church was quite right to condemn Galileo's ideas. She had not yet made completely clear the principle that Scripture does not teach about physical science. It had been taught by Doctors of the Church, but not yet by popes. At a time when many people would not have understood how to interpret Scripture, it was dangerous to the Faith to promote heliocentrism. But, as the situation changed in various ways, the Church was later able to permit heliocentrism.
Galileo was censured because heliocentrism leads to a loss of faith.
READ THE DECREE.
It is not just Protestant misreading of Scripture that causes loss of faith, it is IDEAS about our physical world which are in error.
The Church never taught that Scripture does not intend to speak of physical science.
You are dead wrong, as usual.
Since the Bible depicts a flat stationary earth (as you mention above WholeFoodsTrad), we know by how different it is from the other bodies out there, such as the sun and moon, which are round. A stationary flat earth, located under the sun, moon, and stars, with a dome above it, as scripture depicts, makes it unmistakable that there is a creator who has put our earth as the center of creation, since the sun, moon, and stars rotate above the earth under a dome. On a flat earth, the sun is made for the earth and the earth alone, since it moves above the earth. It is obvious that God created all of it with us in mind.By writing this, you are ignoring/rejecting how the Church teaches us to interpret Scripture.
By writing this, you are ignoring/rejecting how the Church teaches us to interpret Scripture.
We can grasp just how serious this error is when we consider that it was central to the heresy of the Protestants. Please accept the teaching of the Church.
Jaynek exists here under dishonest and deceptive purposes. She bragged at Suscipe Domine about engaging the "dumb" flat earth folks at CI and stated she doesn't even think they are real Catholics and are here faking their beliefs.Quite a few flat earth believers have posted since this appeared and presumably have read it, as well as my post containing what I actually wrote on SD. Not one of you has had anything to say about the lack of truth to Smedley's claims. I did not brag. I did not use the word "dumb". I did not state that flat earth folks are not real Catholics nor that they are faking their beliefs.
What say you, my fellow flat earth believers? Care to tell Jaynek she is full of rubbish?
The Catholic Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.The Catholic Church teaches us to discover the shape of the earth by using science rather than reading meanings into Scripture that it was never intended to have.
I have seen many claims from flat earth believers that they are motivated by their desire for truth. I would find these claims more credible if you seemed to care that someone is lying to you about my SD post, apparently for the purpose of inciting a mob against me. Where is your desire for truth now?
Who gets to decide when popes have made mistakes? Who has the authority to say that about all the encyclicals teaching that Scripture is not intended and should not be used as teaching on science? How does one justify saying that multiple popes authoritatively teaching on how to interpret Scripture got it wrong? And how does one prevent everybody from throwing out the teachings they do not like by claiming that "Popes can make mistakes"?
The Catholic Church teaches us to discover the shape of the earth by using science rather than reading meanings into Scripture that it was never intended to have.
Quite a few flat earth believers have posted since this appeared and presumably have read it, as well as my post containing what I actually wrote on SD. Not one of you has had anything to say about the lack of truth to Smedley's claims. I did not brag. I did not use the word "dumb". I did not state that flat earth folks are not real Catholics nor that they are faking their beliefs.
The only person to call out Smedley for his falsehoods has been Ladislaus.
I have seen many claims from flat earth believers that they are motivated by their desire for truth. I would find these claims more credible if you seemed to care that someone is lying to you about my SD post, apparently for the purpose of inciting a mob against me. Where is your desire for truth now?
I agree.I don't have any problem with people claiming that science shows the earth is flat and making a case for it that way. Scientific understanding is constantly changing and needs to be challenged.
Quite a few flat earth believers have posted since this appeared and presumably have read it, as well as my post containing what I actually wrote on SD. Not one of you has had anything to say about the lack of truth to Smedley's claims. I did not brag. I did not use the word "dumb". I did not state that flat earth folks are not real Catholics nor that they are faking their beliefs.You would not have told the flat earthers here you were studying them like zoo animals to report back there to gossip about them.
The only person to call out Smedley for his falsehoods has been Ladislaus.
I have seen many claims from flat earth believers that they are motivated by their desire for truth. I would find these claims more credible if you seemed to care that someone is lying to you about my SD post, apparently for the purpose of inciting a mob against me. Where is your desire for truth now?
The Catholic Church teaches us to discover the shape of the earth by using science rather than reading meanings into Scripture that it was never intended to have.Meg is right; The Catholic Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.
You would not have told the flat earthers here you were studying them like zoo animals to report back there to gossip about them.I consider any disrespect towards flat earthers by globe earthers unable to disprove the flat earth horizon, as helping our flat earth cause. I say, "BRING IT ON. WE WILL FLATTEN YOU." :popcorn: :incense: :applause:
You're just whining because you got caught, which you didn't plan for.
You disrespect the good will of the flat earth folks here who are willing to honestly engage those who disagree with them.
The Catholic Church teaches us to discover the shape of the earth by using science rather than reading meanings into Scripture that it was never intended to have.The Catholic church teaches no such thing.
The Catholic Church teaches us to discover the shape of the earth by using science rather than reading meanings into Scripture that it was never intended to have.Excuse me? It would do you well to not make stuff up. Where did you get such a notion that the Church teaches such a ridiculous thing?
So far as I have seen you have only provided Leo XIII which is not a very clear quote anyway in reference to globe earthism.Pope Leo XIII's teaching in Providentissimus Deus (1893) was not a reference to the shape of the earth but a general principle of Scriptural exegesis that applies to all matters of the physical order. It was explicitly reiterated and confirmed by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflanto Spiritu (1943):
The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says,[5] speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation";Here is a paraphrase:
Excuse me? It would do you well to not make stuff up. Where did you get such a notion that the Church teaches such a ridiculous thing?It appears that I accept the teaching of the Holy Office more than you do. I accept both the original condemnation of heliocentrism and the later withdrawal of the condemnation. You apparently choose only to accept the former.
Ah, I actually know where you got it. From the fallout of the Galileo Affair designed to destroy Faith. Because you reject the teachings of the Holy Office. You say it yourself constantly. But in your statement above, you've relegated Scripture to obscurity, suggesting that on this matter it is cryptic nonsense no one can understand, all because you prefer the pagan science the Church condemned.
You would not have told the flat earthers here you were studying them like zoo animals to report back there to gossip about them.It is rather sad that your fellow flat earthers tolerate your obvious lies merely because you take the "right" position on flat earth. It looks like none of you care very much about truth.
You're just whining because you got caught, which you didn't plan for.
You disrespect the good will of the flat earth folks here who are willing to honestly engage those who disagree with them.
Pope Leo XIII's teaching in Providentissimus Deus (1893) was not a reference to the shape of the earth but a general principle of Scriptural exegesis that applies to all matters of the physical order. It was explicitly reiterated and confirmed by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflanto Spiritu (1943):Here is a paraphrase:There is nothing in Pope Pius XII Divino Afflante that states what you claim.
Sacred writers when speaking of things of the physical order referred to the way things appeared to the physical senses in the terms commonly used in their time. The Sacred writers, that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through them, did not intend to teach men about things of the physical order (physical science) since these do not concern salvation.
Applying this to the shape of the earth, it is clear that this concerns the nature of the physical universe and is not relevant to salvation. The Sacred writers and the Holy Spirit writing through them did not intend to teach about the shape of the earth. Any references to this were made based on how the earth appeared to the senses using the terminology of their time. If they used phrases that suggest the earth is flat, that does not necessarily mean the earth is actually flat, only that it appeared flat and was spoken of that way at the time.
If the earth is proven by science to be a globe, this is not an error on the part of Scripture. If the earth is flat, it must be shown, not by Scripture, but by science. The sacred writers and the Holy Spirit did not intend Scripture to teach about things of the physical order.
Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), while not going into as much detail Pius XII said " to hold fast to the principles laid down in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus" and warned against a way it was being misapplied in his time. (There were people who, by claiming an analogy between science and history, were trying to undermine the Bible as history.)
Three popes, drawing on the teaching of St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Auinas, all taught that we must interpret Scripture bearing in mind that it does not intend to teach about physical science. I do not see how it is possible to deny that this is Church teaching.
I don't have any problem with people claiming that science shows the earth is flat and making a case for it that way. Scientific understanding is constantly changing and needs to be challenged.
Pope Leo XIII's teaching in Providentissimus Deus (1893) was not a reference to the shape of the earth but a general principle of Scriptural exegesis that applies to all matters of the physical order. It was explicitly reiterated and confirmed by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflanto Spiritu (1943):Here is a paraphrase:
Sacred writers when speaking of things of the physical order referred to the way things appeared to the physical senses in the terms commonly used in their time. The Sacred writers, that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through them, did not intend to teach men about things of the physical order (physical science) since these do not concern salvation.
Applying this to the shape of the earth, it is clear that this concerns the nature of the physical universe and is not relevant to salvation. The Sacred writers and the Holy Spirit writing through them did not intend to teach about the shape of the earth. Any references to this were made based on how the earth appeared to the senses using the terminology of their time. If they used phrases that suggest the earth is flat, that does not necessarily mean the earth is actually flat, only that it appeared flat and was spoken of that way at the time.
If the earth is proven by science to be a globe, this is not an error on the part of Scripture. If the earth is flat, it must be shown, not by Scripture, but by science. The sacred writers and the Holy Spirit did not intend Scripture to teach about things of the physical order.
Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), while not going into as much detail Pius XII said " to hold fast to the principles laid down in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus" and warned against a way it was being misapplied in his time. (There were people who, by claiming an analogy between science and history, were trying to undermine the Bible as history.)
Three popes, drawing on the teaching of St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Auinas, all taught that we must interpret Scripture bearing in mind that it does not intend to teach about physical science. I do not see how it is possible to deny that this is Church teaching.
There is nothing in Pope Pius XII Divino Afflante that states what you claim.I gave an exact quote. It was from paragraph 3. Anyone can look it up and see it there.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/divinoafflante.html
I gave an exact quote. It was from paragraph 3. Anyone can look it up and see it there.
This is typical 19th/20th century speak where everything is vague and unclear.They did not want to say the earth is a globe. It does not matter for salvation whether the earth is a globe or not. They wanted to explain a basic principle for understanding Scripture.
If they had wanted to say the earth was a globe, they would have said it. BUT THEY DONT.
So can't use this to support your argument. It is too vague. Our quotations from the fathers and the Holy office on the other hand are VERY clear.
but like I said, unclear.How is it unclear? What other way could it be understood than what I am saying?
It appears that I accept the teaching of the Holy Office more than you do. I accept both the original condemnation of heliocentrism and the later withdrawal of the condemnation. You apparently choose only to accept the former.Not possible. You're saying the Church was wrong to condemn the pagan model. The model that is credited for ushering in modernism, evolution, false science and the model pagan NASA holds to this day. You are the same ball of contradiction the globe is because you are married to that pagan model. The Church cannot decree a condemnation and then deny she said it. That is ridiculous. She might permit study of a model She condemned, which is a separate issue, but She cannot deny Herself. Not only can She not do such a thing because that means She was in error when She said it, the Church certainly did not accept the heliocentric model because a Pope removed associated teachings from the Index. There is a hierarchy of teachings and the action of removal from the Index is trumped by the metaphysical truths taught in Genesis and upheld by the Church in 1633. You have no proof otherwise. And you have no proof that earth is a sphere, except by your pagan science.
The Church's teaching on Scripture does not relegate it to obscurity nor does the Church suggest that it is cryptic nonsense no one can understand. She does, however, point out that it takes careful study.
They did not want to say the earth is a globe. It does not matter for salvation whether the earth is a globe or not. They wanted to explain a basic principle for understanding Scripture.Prove Scripture does not say earth is flat. You must prove that or do not say that. Because you clearly do not know what Scripture says.
Scripture does not teach the earth is a globe. Scripture does not teach the earth is flat. Scripture is not intended to teach on the subject either way because it is a matter of physical science. This is perfectly clear in the quotes I gave. There is nothing vague about it.
Her many lies about what the Church teaches regarding exegesis and science have spread halfway around the world before the truth got its pants on.She's just talking. No relevant sources at all. I can go watch TV and get more truth.
Again Jaynek tells a big lie: Pope Leo XIII says no such thing as she claims.Pope Leo says exactly what I said he did. It is in paragraph 18:
Read it for yourself, especially paragraph 15:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
Jaynek told a huge lie: that the Church said Bible does not pretend to teach science.Protestants interpret things according to their own mind and refuse submission to the Church and refuse submission to the literal interpretation of Scripture. This poor lady has nothing substantive to the contrary. It has been shown over and over that the Church maintains a position in the matter and always has, but the Church does this for Jaynek too, and she could care less.
The Church never said that.
Galileo did.
Galileo is the one who said these things did not concern our salvation, and not matters of the faith, not the Church.
Not possible. You're saying the Church was wrong to condemn the pagan model. The model that is credited for ushering in modernism, evolution, false science and the model pagan NASA holds to this day. You are the same ball of contradiction the globe is because you are married to that pagan model. The Church cannot decree a condemnation and then deny she said it. That is ridiculous. She might permit study of a model She condemned, which is a separate issue, but She cannot deny Herself. Not only can She not do such a thing because that means She was in error when She said it, the Church certainly did not accept the heliocentric model because a Pope removed associated teachings from the Index. There is a hierarchy of teachings and the action of removal from the Index is trumped by the metaphysical truths taught in Genesis and upheld by the Church in 1633. You have no proof otherwise. And you have no proof that earth is a sphere, except by your pagan science.I started a thread recently called "Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him" in which I explained just how this position is compatible with the later withdrawal of the condemnation by papal decree. All your objections are addressed in my posts there.
Prove Scripture does not say earth is flat. You must prove that or do not say that. Because you clearly do not know what Scripture says.Scripture may very well use language that suggests the earth is flat. But this does not mean it is teaching that the earth is flat because, as the Church tells us, Scripture is not intended to teach about physical science. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from what Scripture says because you are not taking its intent into consideration.
#35:Exactly. The literal sense means the intent. Various popes and Doctors have taught that the intent is not to teach about physical science.
"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammer and philology alone, nor solely by the context: the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archeology, ethnology and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period were likely to use, and in fact did use."
Exactly. The literal sense means the intent. Various popes and Doctors have taught that the intent is not to teach about physical science.
I started a thread recently called "Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him" in which I explained just how this position is compatible with the later withdrawal of the condemnation by papal decree. All your objections are addressed in my posts there.Fr. Chad Ripperger has an excellent rebuttal (by general consensus of philosophers) to your notion that it doesn't matter what shape the earth is.
I don't care if the earth is a sphere or not. I care that you are misunderstanding/opposing Church teaching on interpreting Scripture. A correct understanding of Scripture is central to our faith, while the shape of the earth is completely irrelevant.
Jaynek has been shown to have zero understanding of exegesis, and lamely argues a la Bill Clinton what the meaning of is, is.She really does cling to the ball like plastic wrap.
She is not at all credible.
Wrong. The passage doesn't say that we can't interpret the bible in terms of physical science, or that we cannot view anything regarding the physical universe.Indeed Meg, God created Heaven and Earth and described it for us. Jaynek's argument is with God.
You didn't read the rest of what I wrote. We must look to historical references to determine what the ancient authors were intending. THAT'S what the passage was speaking to. We look to the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe, which lines up with Genesis.
If you are not comfortable with using scripture to demonstrate a flat earth, that's up to you. But we will be doing as such, even in the midst of your continual accusations.
God created the Heaven and Earth. It is not irrelevant to our Faith.
Indeed Meg, God created Heaven and Earth and described it for us. Jaynek's argument is with God.
Agreed.Yes! Its amazing how so many things gel when the cloud of lies that prevented our seeing before obscured all such details. And I will add specifically to your post that most don't even consider that God delineates these two realms for a reason. Maker of heaven and earth. Fantastic Meg.
We reiterate this when we say our daily prayers..."I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.."
Fr. Chad Ripperger has an excellent rebuttal (by general consensus of philosophers) to your notion that it doesn't matter what shape the earth is.Brilliant!
"People's denial of the knowledge of God, or that you can come to a knowledge of God, is rooted in certain metaphysical problems in relationship to reality. The common teaching among philosophers is, what your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understanding of who God is. Due to modern philosophers, People's understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."
Quote found at about minute 5 and a half.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ripperger+metaphysics%2C+evolution%2C+divorce
Wrong. The passage doesn't say that we can't interpret the bible in terms of physical science, or that we cannot view anything regarding the physical universe.Right. That paragraph explained that the literal sense of Scripture means the sense intended by the author. An earlier paragraph explained the Sacred authors do not intend to teach about natural science. When we put those two facts together we see that taking the literal sense of Scripture means we should not use it to draw conclusions about science.
You didn't read the rest of what I wrote. We must look to historical references to determine what the ancient authors were intending. THAT'S what the passage was speaking to. We look to the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe, which lines up with Genesis.
If you are not comfortable with using scripture to demonstrate a flat earth, that's up to you. But we will be doing as such, even in the midst of your continual accusations.
God created the Heaven and Earth. It is not irrelevant to our Faith.
Scripture may very well use language that suggests the earth is flat. But this does not mean it is teaching that the earth is flat because, as the Church tells us, Scripture is not intended to teach about physical science. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from what Scripture says because you are not taking its intent into consideration.
Right. That paragraph explained that the literal sense of Scripture means the sense intended by the author. An earlier paragraph explained the Sacred authors do not intend to teach about natural science. When we put those two facts together we see that taking the literal sense of Scripture means we should not use it to draw conclusions about science.
I did read the rest of what you wrote. There are times when it is helpful to look at history to understand the author's intent. But nothing in history will tell you they intended to write about science when the Church has already taught that they did not.
This has nothing to do with what I am comfortable with. You are not following Church teaching.
And I could speak about the flat open plains of the central United States even if I believe that the earth is a sphere. Use of the term "flat" doesn't necessarily have an absolute meaning but could be a relative term. Even if Scripture doesn't intend to teach about it, there can be no error in Scripture. But terms can be used in different ways. I can say that the sun moved across the sky and that does not by itself mean I'm a geocentrist (even though I personally am). Motion is relative, and so are various other descriptive terms that are not necessarily used in an absolute way. But let's be very careful with the "Scripture does not intend to teach about ..." terminology, for the modernists use the same expression to explain why there are historical "errors" (in their reckoning) in Scripture. While Scripture does not intend to teach about history per se, there can be no historical errors in Scripture. Period. When Scripture refers to the "vault" of the heavens, that could be a metaphorical term rather than the scientific description of a physical structure. Scripture could say something like, "And Jesus said..." but the words that follow don't necessarily have to be direct quotes (in our modern understanding) but could be paraphrases about the essence of what He said. That's not an error but just a different understanding of how the authors of Sacred Scripture made citations (direct vs. indirect quotations).This is a good point to make clear. It is a major theme in the encyclicals I have been quoting. Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism. We can never hold that there errors in Scripture.
So we have to walk a fine line between being too slavishly literal and absolute on the one hand and attributing even historical or scientific error to Scripture.
The Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.
This is a good point to make clear. It is a major theme in the encyclicals I have been quoting. Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism. We can never hold that there errors in Scripture.
Who provides you with all of those quotes, Jayne?I did research on the topic and found them in various places.
I did research on the topic and found them in various places.
The Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.
Then are we free to teach our children that it is??
Some here on CI say it doesn’t matter if it’s flat or not, but are not some of them perhaps assisting children with homework and subjects in school that teach a clear model (i.e. solar system, endless universe, spinning ball with gravity, people that walk upside down underneath it) that when fully realized completely contradicts Scripture?
And would it not be for the sole purpose of undermining It (Scripture) and God’s Creation? :confused:
‘Where is The Firmament oh wise science textbook oracle?’
Well, no, one is not free to teach it if one is aware that the globe earth is false. I homeschooled my children, quite awhile ago, and taught the globe earth, before I knew what the reality is.Yes Meg I had to undo the indoctrination done to my children after I discovered the truth too, I am just amazed that people have the nerve to say ‘it doesn’t matter’ that’s what gets me.
And yes, I do think that some (one at least) on this thread are out to undermine scripture and God's creation. Why, I do not know.
Agreed.
Yes Meg I had to undo the indoctrination done to my children after I discovered the truth too, I am just amazed that people have the nerve to say ‘it doesn’t matter’ that’s what gets me.
‘It doesn’t matter but I’ll teach them something that may or may not be true anyways’ :facepalm:
This is a good point to make clear. It is a major theme in the encyclicals I have been quoting. Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism. We can never hold that there errors in Scripture.This is a very strange statement. Basically, it says that it doesn't matter what we believe. That what we believe can be relative. By this statement, it can be said that Protestantism is truth, or unintentional heresy is good because it is relatively Christian, because its intention is Christian. Either what we believe is absolute, or it is false. There is no quasi truth. Relativity is a product of pagan spherical earth where the concept of truth is impossible. Because on a globe level horizon means curved horizon. And up means down, depending on where you are on the globe. That above or risen might mean below or descended, depending. That direction is not direction but all is relative to one's position. This is a product of vital immanence, the crux of modernism. As such, the imprecision and contradictions of the globe make it false. Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocuмcue defectu. Good is of the whole. Evil only needs one defect. And the globe is full of defects.
This is a very strange statement. Basically, it says that it doesn't matter what we believe. That what we believe can be relative. By this statement, it can be said that Protestantism is truth, or unintentional heresy is good because it is relatively Christian, because its intention is Christian. Either what we believe is absolute, or it is false. There is no quasi truth. Relativity is a product of pagan spherical earth where the concept of truth is impossible. Because on a globe level horizon means curved horizon. And up means down, depending on where you are on the globe. That above or risen might mean below or descended, depending. That direction is not direction but all is relative to one's position. This is a product of vital immanence, the crux of modernism. As such, the imprecision and contradictions of the globe make it false. Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocuмcue defectu. Good is of the whole. Evil only needs one defect. And the globe is full of defects.How do you get that from a statement that there are no errors in Scripture?
It is not Heliocentrism that leads to a loss of faith, but rather trying to use exegetical principles other than those taught by the Church. When people try to use the Bible to determine matters of physical science, it is inevitable that there be apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, as well as within Scripture itself, because that is not its intended meaning. When people accept the Church teaching that Scripture does not intend to speak of physical science, there will never be such conflicts. There will never even be a temptation to reject Scripture for the reason you suggest. The Church, in her wisdom, long ago solved this problem. This exegetical principle goes back to St. Basil and St. Augustine and, starting with Leo XIII, appears in the magisterial writing of several popes.Sorry Jane, but you seem to have missed the point of my post. Regardless of what you think people should do, the reality is that people do in fact reject The Bible, because they believe it can't be God's Word, if it isn't accurate in regards to Science as well as History, Archeology, Psychology, ect.
Concerns about people rejecting Scripture because of science is normally a Protestant problem. Due to their heresy, they try to interpret Scripture for themselves without the wisdom of the Church to guide them. Of course, they will run into problems. But there is no reason for Catholics to see this as an issue.
If you have science based reasons to believe the earth is flat, go ahead. But appealing to Scripture for support is a rejection of Church teaching on Scriptural exegesis and of the Church's authority as sole interpreter of Scripture. It is a serious error.
They did not want to say the earth is a globe. It does not matter for salvation whether the earth is a globe or not. They wanted to explain a basic principle for understanding Scripture.Jane, you obviously have not taken any time to research how The Bible actually portrays The Earth and The Heavens. It clearly portrays a Flat Earth that dominates all of Creation in regards to size and position.
Scripture does not teach the earth is a globe. Scripture does not teach the earth is flat. Scripture is not intended to teach on the subject either way because it is a matter of physical science. This is perfectly clear in the quotes I gave. There is nothing vague about it.
Thanks, I appreciate your support. I should have maybe done a better job of explaining what I meant. I just assume that after having participated on these threads, that everyone here knew what I meant (even if they don't agree with it).
The globe earth leads to secular humanism, because it teaches that our earth is just another globe; one among many. We're just not that big a deal - though our earth does support life, of course. But it may or may not have had a creator, since it's basically the same shape as the others out there. And it has led to assertions that there must be life on other planets. Most people on earth believe in the heliocentric model, which teaches that earth is just one of the planets that rotate around the sun. The sun is at the center, not the earth. I used to watch the history channel, years ago, and all of the goofy alien theories they promote are just ridiculous. Yet they get away with it, because of the heliocentric model. Even my mom (who isn't at all religious) believes in the Jeremiah Sitchin view that we humans were once aliens on other planets. And now my oldest son is starting to believe in those theories, too. This is just one example of how secular humanism depends on the heliocentric globe model.
I'll try to explain it as best I can, as to why the flat earth is important. Hopefully other flatearthers will chime in too, with another perspective on the same thing:
Since the Bible depicts a flat stationary earth (as you mention above WholeFoodsTrad), we know by how different it is from the other bodies out there, such as the sun and moon, which are round. A stationary flat earth, located under the sun, moon, and stars, with a dome above it, as scripture depicts, makes it unmistakable that there is a creator who has put our earth as the center of creation, since the sun, moon, and stars rotate above the earth under a dome. On a flat earth, the sun is made for the earth and the earth alone, since it moves above the earth. It is obvious that God created all of it with us in mind.
Cry me a river sweetheart. Read my posts above.I know! :laugh2: Talk about playing the victim.
This is typical 19th/20th century speak where everything is vague and unclear.Thank you Kiwiboy!
If they had wanted to say the earth was a globe, they would have said it. BUT THEY DONT.
So can't use this to support your argument. It is too vague. Our quotations from the fathers and the Holy office on the other hand are VERY clear.
I'm a convert to Catholicism. So, I had to take RCIA classess. One of our last lessons included a video by Bishop Barron on Faith and Reason. I can't find the video on youtube, but basically he says what Jaynek is saying, that The Bible is like "Moby Dick." A great fiction, with good ideas in it.
If you don't know who he is, he articulates that viewpoint in the first 3 minutes of this video. The rest is not worth your time :laugh1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
The Church does not teach that the earth is a globe..
.The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The Church doesn't teach anything about the shape of the earth.
.
The shape of the earth is not something the Church has authority to teach in the first place.
.
The Church is not concerned with what the earth's shape is.
.
Ah yes, Bishop Barron. I think he once said that Hell may not exist.Yeah, he's a barrel of laughs! :laugh1:
A couple of interesting quotes from Bishop Barron in first three minutes of the video:
"Genesis is not science at all. So what is it? I would call it theology, mysticism, spirituality."
"The non-contingent ground of contingency gives rise to all things - even here and now."
Such profound gems of insight! (Just kidding).
I have to wonder of it's Bishop Barron who is feeding Jayne information to post here. ;)
They did not want to say the earth is a globe. It does not matter for salvation whether the earth is a globe or not. They wanted to explain a basic principle for understanding Scripture.
Scripture does not teach the earth is a globe. Scripture does not teach the earth is flat. Scripture is not intended to teach on the subject either way because it is a matter of physical science. This is perfectly clear in the quotes I gave. There is nothing vague about it.
Scripture may very well use language that suggests the earth is flat. But this does not mean it is teaching that the earth is flat because, as the Church tells us, Scripture is not intended to teach about physical science. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from what Scripture says because you are not taking its intent into consideration.
I'm a convert to Catholicism. So, I had to take RCIA classess. One of our last lessons included a video by Bishop Barron on Faith and Reason. I can't find the video on youtube, but basically he says what Jaynek is saying, that The Bible is like "Moby Dick." A great fiction, with good ideas in it.
I have to wonder of it's Bishop Barron who is feeding Jayne information to post here. ;)
But we should not use figures of speech like "the four corners of the earth" to determine that the earth is a square or flat or anything else about its shape because, as the Church teaches, Scripture does not intend to
teach about the shape of the earth or anything in the realm of physical science.
And I could speak about the flat open plains of the central United States even if I believe that the earth is a sphere. Use of the term "flat" doesn't necessarily have an absolute meaning but could be a relative term. Even if Scripture doesn't intend to teach about it, there can be no error in Scripture. But terms can be used in different ways. I can say that the sun moved across the sky and that does not by itself mean I'm a geocentrist (even though I personally am). Motion is relative, and so are various other descriptive terms that are not necessarily used in an absolute way. But let's be very careful with the "Scripture does not intend to teach about ..." terminology, for the modernists use the same expression to explain why there are historical "errors" (in their reckoning) in Scripture. While Scripture does not intend to teach about history per se, there can be no historical errors in Scripture. Period. When Scripture refers to the "vault" of the heavens, that could be a metaphorical term rather than the scientific description of a physical structure. Scripture could say something like, "And Jesus said..." but the words that follow don't necessarily have to be direct quotes (in our modern understanding) but could be paraphrases about the essence of what He said. That's not an error but just a different understanding of how the authors of Sacred Scripture made citations (direct vs. indirect quotations).
So we have to walk a fine line between being too slavishly literal and absolute on the one hand and attributing even historical or scientific error to Scripture.
Pope St. Pius X – Responses of the Biblical CommissionI read the link. It supports what I am saying.
Question 3. Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the foundation of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Response: No
https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/
I think the above is VERY interesting. If you read the link the only thing that he says we can diverge on is whether creation was a literal 7 days.
Question 7. Although it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity, is it necessary, when interpreting these chapters, to seek strictly and always the particular characteristics of scientific discourse?The question that you quoted concerned historical facts related to faith, such as " the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer."
Response: No.
We use both scripture and science.No. Science only. The Church tells us that Scripture does not intend to teach about things like the shape of the earth. Why would we use Scripture to discover things that it is not intending to teach?
Obviously scripture is not a science book and more than I can learn physics from my cookbook. But certain important aspects such as the sun and the moon etc. can be taken from it. If what you say is true than the Fathers who used scripture to speak of the solidity of the firmament etc. were wasting their time.
Jaynek vs Church Fathers.
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas.Did the Fathers speak unanimously of the solidity of the firmament as a matter pertaining to faith? No, they did not.
Sorry Jane, but you seem to have missed the point of my post. Regardless of what you think people should do, the reality is that people do in fact reject The Bible, because they believe it can't be God's Word, if it isn't accurate in regards to Science as well as History, Archeology, Psychology, ect.People who reject the Bible for not being accurate in regards to Science are ignoring Church teaching on Scripture. Often it is because they are looking for an excuse to avoid obeying God.
Furthermore, I don't know what catechism you are reading from, but the ones I have read, are consistent with The Bible. Sure, there are times when a passage from The Bible could be interpreted to mean one of two things, but when taken in context and in its entirety, most of those are resolved. For the few that aren't crystal clear, The Church may perhaps have used its power to interpret, but never does it contradict The Bible.
People who reject the Bible for not being accurate in regards to Science are ignoring Church teaching on Scripture. Often it is because they are looking for an excuse to avoid obeying God.Scripture. Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:
What catechism are you reading from that says Catholics should believe the earth is flat?
Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism. We can never hold that there errors in Scripture.Yet here you are doing exactly what Benedict warned about:
I read the link. It supports what I am saying.You dishonestly left the description of the Firmament out of your list. That specifically deals with the shape and arrangement of the cosmos.
The question that you quoted concerned historical facts related to faith, such as " the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer."
Note that there is nothing in this list about the shape of the earth or the arrangement of the cosmos.
Scripture. Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8 )
Galileo would have us believe that there is an absolute separation in Holy Scripture between matters of faith and morals and matters pertaining to the physical sciences. That such is not at all the case, Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."Who says the Church has not proposed flat earth for belief as having been divinely revealed? Prove the main geocentric model of that time posited spherical earth. In fact, we have proof from writings of great Catholics that the ones who posited such a thing were pagans. I can read. In context. The words say what they say, not what you wish them to say. They are quite clear. Again, this is not the world according to Jaynek. The Fathers and Scripture testify that earth is not as the pagans claim.
The Church has not proposed flat earth for belief as having been divinely revealed. There has been no solemn judgement or magisterial teaching to say this. It is not implied by the condemnation of heliocentrism (even if that had not been later removed) because the main geocentric model of that time posited a spherical earth.
The quote from Spiritus Paraclitus warns about modernists who were misapplying the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. Read in context, it is clear that it is not dismissing the actual teaching that I have been citing. It is even clearer that Benedict XV, who wrote that encyclical, did not mean what you think, when one considers what he wrote in In Praeclara Summorum. Writing of Dante's concept of the earth, the pope stated:
Speaking of reading things in context, would you please name the catechism you cite or give a link to it. I would like to see your quote in context.
You dishonestly left the description of the Firmament out of your list. That specifically deals with the shape and arrangement of the cosmos.I did a cut and paste of the exact list that was in the original docuмent. Anyone can go back in the thread and see for himself that I did not leave anything out. This is at least the third time you have told a lie like this, in which you make a claim about something written elsewhere that is obviously untrue when checked. You are the one who is dishonest and it discredits your fellow flat earthers that they allow your lies to go unchallenged.
I did a cut and paste of the exact list that was in the original docuмent. Anyone can go back in the thread and see for himself that I did not leave anything out. This is at least the third time you have told a lie like this, in which you make a claim about something written elsewhere that is obviously untrue when checked. You are the one who is dishonest and it discredits your fellow flat earthers that they allow your lies to go unchallenged.
If you can't tell the truth about these things, why should anyone believe what you say about any other subject. Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth. I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.
Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8)
Galileo would have us believe that there is an absolute separation in Holy Scripture between matters of faith and morals and matters pertaining to the physical sciences. That such is not at all the case, Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
Only a few pitiful trailer park trash types sincerely believe flat earth.
Most flat earth proponents are NWO/kike provocateurs angling to make traditionalists appear generally as ignorant as trailer park trash.
I did a cut and paste of the exact list that was in the original docuмent. Anyone can go back in the thread and see for himself that I did not leave anything out. This is at least the third time you have told a lie like this, in which you make a claim about something written elsewhere that is obviously untrue when checked. You are the one who is dishonest and it discredits your fellow flat earthers that they allow your lies to go unchallenged.I'm referring to the Book Of Genesis, not your cut & paste skills.
If you can't tell the truth about these things, why should anyone believe what you say about any other subject. Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth. I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.
Only a few pitiful trailer park trash types sincerely believe flat earth.You wish. Flat earth is sweeping all nations and people are finally waking up to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its foisting of the heliocentric lie on the world for profit and gaining control. Sad that those of you who have to wait for it to get popular before you believe it stubbornly remain skeptical without even fully understanding it.
Most flat earth proponents are NWO/kike provocateurs angling to make traditionalists appear generally as ignorant as trailer park trash.
I read the link. It supports what I am saying.There's plenty of descriptions revealing to man the shape of the earth in Scripture. Literally.
The question that you quoted concerned historical facts related to faith, such as " the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer."
Note that there is nothing in this list about the shape of the earth or the arrangement of the cosmos.
Who says the Church has not proposed flat earth for belief as having been divinely revealed? Prove the main geocentric model of that time posited spherical earth. In fact, we have proof from writings of great Catholics that the ones who posited such a thing were pagans. I can read. In context. The words say what they say, not what you wish them to say. They are quite clear. Again, this is not the world according to Jaynek. The Fathers and Scripture testify that earth is not as the pagans claim.If there had been a decree or magisterial docuмent proposing flat earth as having been divinely revealed, I would have expected a flat earther to post it by now. I know that I have never come across such a thing and I have been reading a lot on the topic. It is not possible to prove a negative, but you can prove me wrong by producing one.
The quote from Pope Benedict makes it clear that the Church does notMeg, have you read the entire Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus? I am not misrepresenting what they say. I am not taking a modernist position.
accept the idea that Scripture only concerns itself with matters of religion, and that scripture does not pertain the to profane disciplines.
He mentions the "recent critics," and he seems to be correcting their erroneous ideas. The "recent critics" are likely those who want to separate Scripture from science, as Jayne and the modernists do.
Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth. I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.You finally admit what your cronies at SD were saying: that flat earthers are not "real" and they must be existing to make Catholics look bad.
Meg, have you read the entire Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus? I am not misrepresenting what they say. I am not taking a modernist position.You are the modernist position.
Meg, have you read the entire Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus? I am not misrepresenting what they say. I am not taking a modernist position.
The only troll here is the one who suddenly appeared from SD a month ago to mock Catholics who believe what God reveals about His Creation in the Bible.Anyone can check my profile and see that this is not true.
Username:JaynekI have been a member of this forum for over six years and written well over a thousand posts on a variety of topics. In September 2017, I started posting more frequently here than I have been for a while because I was feeling less comfortable on the forum I usually posted on. Towards the end of November I got interested in the flat earth topic. It is all there in my post history for anyone who bothers to look.
Posts:1618 (0.676 per day)
Date Registered:June 12, 2011, 03:37:49 AM
Pope Benedict XV makes it clear that Scripture is not limited to matters of religion only.You did not answer my question. Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?
You do seem to take the modernist position.
You did not answer my question. Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?
You did not answer my question. Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, Vatican I condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it.
The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, the Church condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it when the Church has a history of teaching it in other ways.
If a Catholic believes that Scripture speaks only to matters of faith, and not to the sciences, then I have to assume that they also believe, as the modernists do, that faith and science are to be kept separate.Such an excellent point. Jaynek would have us believe the Church cannot understand science, or contradicts true science, or really has no business proscribing false science. That way, acting the modernist, all she has to do is drop the parts of truth she doesn't like into the science sand box and make ridiculous claims that the Church is forbidden to play there.
Here's a quote from Pope St. Pius X, on the Doctrine of the Modernists, from Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I'm quoting part of #16, called "Faith and Science." He is speaking to the doctrine of the modernists regarding faith and science:
#16:
Faith and Science
"Having reached this point, venerable brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be 'unknowable' for it. Hence, each has a separate field assigned for it: science is to be entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissention between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore be in contradiction."
I don't have to answer your question.I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts. That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.
You still believe that Scripture does not relate to matters of science, but only to matters of faith?
I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts. That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.
It is the clear teaching of three papal encyclicals that Scripture does not intend to teach about science. Of course, I believe it. I accept Church teaching.
The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, Vatican I condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it.There is no question of Scripture being scientifically inaccurate because it is not intending to say anything about science. Even fallible humans like you and I cannot make mistakes on a subject we are silent on.
I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts. That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth," - "so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
It is the clear teaching of three papal encyclicals that Scripture does not intend to teach about science. Of course, I believe it. I accept Church teaching.
You seem have the false Modernist belief that faith and science are not connected, and that they are separate.Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.
Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.
Of course, faith and science are connected. They are both at the service of truth and should work together. Faith, however, is the greater and science must always submit to faith if there seems to be a conflict. The dogmas of our faith are infallible while science is never infallible. It is always subject to change.
However, when people misunderstand Church teachings and interpret Scripture in opposition to how we should, this not part of our Faith and is very much fallible.
There is no question of Scripture being scientifically inaccurate because it is not intending to say anything about science. Even fallible humans like you and I cannot make mistakes on a subject we are silent on.Scripture is anything but silent on the science of geography, explaining the earth is underneath a hard, firmament dome, that water is above the firmament, that the sun, moon and stars revolve within the firmament, and that above the firmament is heaven, that the firmament shows the glory of God, etc. It also tells us that earth is fixed, on pillars and is bound up with heaven like a block of stone. Now these cannot be a lie and must be accepted at face value. But Scripture goes further describing earth like a wax seal with upturned edges. Certainly none of these even remotely suggest earth is a ball. Reason also tells us that people don't stick to the outside of a ball walking around opposite each other, or that vast amounts of water just magically stick to a ball while a small child can jump and play freely next to the shores of the sea. The person who believes such nonsense ought to hang their head in shame.
There is a problem when people read unintended teachings about science into Scripture. These can be wrong and unfortunately, may be misunderstood as harming the credibility of Scripture.
You yourself posted the quote which showed that an interpretation of Scripture needs to be decreed or magisterially taught in order to be considered infallible. There was nothing in Vatican I about people getting to make their own interpretations of Scripture. I certainly am under no obligation to believe the things you read into Scripture that the Church has not taught.
The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth," - "so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.None of these things overrides explicit teaching in papal encyclicals.
What is our faith based on?We should believe everything that the Church professes for our belief.
We should believe everything that the Church professes for our belief.
Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.The horizontal horizon is infallible.
Of course, faith and science are connected. They are both at the service of truth and should work together. Faith, however, is the greater and science must always submit to faith if there seems to be a conflict. The dogmas of our faith are infallible while science is never infallible. It is always subject to change.
However, when people misunderstand Church teachings and interpret Scripture in opposition to how we should, this not part of our Faith and is very much fallible.
And where does the Church derive teachings, that she professes for our belief?Actually, Scripture and Tradition are two separate sources of truth. The Church teaches that we don't believe Scripture because of the Church but that Scripture stands alone as one of two fonts of revelation. Revelation means to reveal. By it God reveals to man what he needs for salvation. That means Scripture is a necessary source for learning what God wants us to know, as is Tradition. Now, how can a person believe truly in a source of revelation if they are so prejudiced against scripture for being too cryptic to ever understand it? How beautifully the Galileo pagan assault has affected Catholics today; evidenced by the answers of people in this forum that deny the veracity of Scripture because it doesn't mean what it says.
Anyone can check my profile and see that this is not true.Thanks for displaying your dim intellect, yet again.
I have been a member of this forum for over six years and written well over a thousand posts on a variety of topics. In September 2017, I started posting more frequently here than I have been for a while because I was feeling less comfortable on the forum I usually posted on. Towards the end of November I got interested in the flat earth topic. It is all there in my post history for anyone who bothers to look.
Smedley told yet another easily disprovable lie. This is a typical troll behaviour. They post things that are false to provoke people into posting corrections. As I understand it, it gives them a feeling of power to manipulate people into posting.
Smedley's profile, by the way, shows a new poster who joined on December 22 (i.e. less than two weeks ago) who has written around 70 posts, primarily on this topic.
At this point, I am certain enough he is trolling that will treat him like one and stop responding. People should expect to see him make more and more outrageous comments in order to get a response. There will probably be a lot more lies, so I recommend checking anything he writes before believing it.
Actually, Scripture and Tradition are two separate sources of truth. The Church teaches that we don't believe Scripture because of the Church but that Scripture stands alone as one of two fonts of revelation. Revelation means to reveal. By it God reveals to man what he needs for salvation. That means Scripture is a necessary source for learning what God wants us to know, as is Tradition. Now, how can a person believe truly in a source of revelation if they are so prejudiced against scripture for being too cryptic to ever understand it? How beautifully the Galileo pagan assault has affected Catholics today; evidenced by the answers of people in this forum that deny the veracity of Scripture because it doesn't mean what it says.
Scripture is anything but silent on the science of geography, explaining the earth is underneath a hard, firmament dome, that water is above the firmament, that the sun, moon and stars revolve within the firmament, and that above the firmament is heaven, that the firmament shows the glory of God, etc. It also tells us that earth is fixed, on pillars and is bound up with heaven like a block of stone. Now these cannot be a lie and must be accepted at face value.No it is incorrect to say they must be accepted at face value. That is not what the Church teaches.
No it is incorrect to say they must be accepted at face value. That is not what the Church teaches.Please explain to the audience why Benedict XV was incorrect when he stated "even the individual words of the Bible are infallible. "
Actually, Scripture and Tradition are two separate sources of truth. The Church teaches that we don't believe Scripture because of the Church but that Scripture stands alone as one of two fonts of revelation. Revelation means to reveal. By it God reveals to man what he needs for salvation. That means Scripture is a necessary source for learning what God wants us to know, as is Tradition. Now, how can a person believe truly in a source of revelation if they are so prejudiced against scripture for being too cryptic to ever understand it? How beautifully the Galileo pagan assault has affected Catholics today; evidenced by the answers of people in this forum that deny the veracity of Scripture because it doesn't mean what it says.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm)
Yes, separate but connected. Our Catholic Faith is based on Scripture and Tradition - at least that's what I've always been taught by traditional priests.Of course, our faith is based on Scripture and Tradition, but these are interpreted through the Magisterium. You are interpreting them for yourself, ignoring the magisterial teaching that says you are doing it incorrectly.
If faith and science are connected, as Jayne has admitted, then Scripture can't be left out, since it is one of the two pillars of our faith.
Of course, our faith is based on Scripture and Tradition, but these are interpreted through the Magisterium. You are interpreting them for yourself, ignoring the magisterial teaching that says you are doing it incorrectly.
No, not incorrectly. Only incorrectly from a modernist POV.You are interpreting Scripture incorrectly according to Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII. None of these were modernists.
Our Faith is based on scripture and tradition. The Fathers of the Church who wrote about the physical earth did not go against the magisterium. They based their views on scripture, which we also are allowed to do. If they could do so, then it is not wrong for us. They may not even have thought of it as "science." I don't think that the physical earth was necessarily a separate issue from that of Faith back then, as you and the modernists make it out to be now.
You are interpreting Scripture incorrectly according to Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII. None of these were modernists.
Since these popes lived long after the Fathers of the Church, it is not possible for the Fathers to have followed their teaching. Just as there was nothing wrong with questioning the dogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was defined but doing so was a sin afterward, disregarding the teaching that Scripture does not intend to teach science is wrong now in a way it was not before these encyclicals were published.
The Fathers wrote many things that were wrong, even some that would be sinful to believe now. Leo XIII explicitly said that some of their ideas about science which they based on Scripture were wrong.
You're being a Catholic incorrectly, Meg!
:laugh2:
:facepalm:
So you believe that all of those Church Fathers were wrong, and that it is a sin to believe what they taught. Where did Leo Xlll condemn the flat earth? You'll need to be specific. I am asking about the condemnation of the flat earth, so don't go off on a tangent and post other stuff.
Without speaking for her, I don't think she would consider it a "sin" to believe in flat earth, nor would she hold that it's condemned; her issue is with the dogmatic flat earthers who insist that it's a matter of faith (i.e. almost de fide) and that those who think otherwise are not Catholics or at the very least bad Catholics.
Hey, JayneK, I'm rather uncomfortable with your continued use of the terminology that Scripture "did not intend to teach about science" and your attempt to make a radical bifurcation between faith and science. If Holy Scripture were to have stated, in no uncertain terms, "No, the earth is not shaped like a ball but is flat, etc. etc." then it would be heresy to believe in globe earth. That was in fact the mind of the Holy Office when it condemned heliocentrism as heretical and contrary to the faith. And this is also consistent with the mind of St. Pius X and other popes regarding Scripture. That division between faith and science or, alternatively, faith and history has an extremely modernist savor to it, so I would urge you to abandon that phraseology.When I say that "Scripture did not intend to teach about science" I am trying to paraphrase Leo XIII saying "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."" I have quoted Providentissimus Deus enough that I expect people to recognize my phrase as an allusion to the encyclical and realize that I mean just what it means. I do not intend to separate faith and science any more than it does.
Indeed, however, Scripture can be read as using metaphorical or relative terminology to describe phenomena rather than scientifically-precise terminology. So, for instance, people who are heliocentrists would nevertheless use expressions like "the sun rose" or "the sun moved across the sky" ... because they're describing the motion of the sun relative to their own perspective rather than in some absolute scientifc way. Maybe that's what you mean, that Scripture doesn't always intend to use terms in a absolute or scientifically-precise way. Similarly, Scripture, when quoting Our Lord, does not always intend to render a direct quote from Our Lord but could be conveying the essence of what He said.
With regard to the Fathers, indeed most of them believed in a flat earth. I just don't see any evidence that they regarded it as a matter of faith or a teaching of the Church or, most importantly, a revealed truth that was part of the Deposit and handed down through the Apostles. They often rejected it as "stupid". Their "belief" (notice I do not say "faith") in it by itself doesn't rise to the level of its constituting a dogmatic consensus regarding the matter. And that's consistent with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.
So I believe that between the possibility that Scripture is not using precise and absolute scientific terminology and the lack of evidence that there's dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers on the issue, I consider it an open question vis-a-vis the faith, at least at this point in time.
I am still open, scientifically, however, where it comes to the possibility of flat earth. I've seen some very interesting points made by the proponents of flat earth (though there are difficulties with the position as well) and I continue to investigate the issue and keep an open mind about it.
Without speaking for her, I don't think she would consider it a "sin" to believe in flat earth, nor would she hold that it's condemned; her issue is with the dogmatic flat earthers who insist that it's a matter of faith (i.e. almost de fide) and that those who think otherwise are not Catholics or at the very least bad Catholics.
Einstein groupie Jaynek does not believe Benedict XV's encyclical that says even the individual words of the Bible are infallible.That's cool about The Firmament or Firmamentum. I've been wondering where that crystal dome thing came from. 8)
She doesn't believe the Latin word firmamentum in Genesis means solid and strong.
The only troll here is the one who suddenly appeared from SD a month ago to mock Catholics who believe what God reveals about His Creation in the Bible.
Those flat-earthers who believe that it is De Fide are a definite minority. And I don't see any indication that Jayne is limiting her criticism only toward them. I can only think of one who believes that it's a matter of faith.Almost all of you write as if believing in flat earth made you better Catholics and associate belief in globe earth with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and other errors. You don't have to use the words "de fide" to act like this is a matter of faith.
I do see that she believes that we are not allowed to believe in a scriptural basis for a flat earth. We are going to disagree, of course. She implied indirectly that Pope Leo condemned the idea of a flat earth. So I would like her to show where he stated this. And why would she even mention the "sin" thing if she doesn't believe it's sinful to believe in a flat earth. Why mention it at all?
Almost all of you write as if believing in flat earth made you better Catholics and associate belief in globe earth with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and other errors. You don't have to use the words "de fide" to act like this is a matter of faith.
You are treating the language used in Scripture as if it were scientific terminology and distorting its meaning, in spite of Pope Leo XIII saying not to do this. So yes, I object to that. I am not however implying that he condemned the idea of a flat earth. It's obvious that he did not say anything about flat earth. I have no idea how you got the idea that thought he was.
I mentioned "sin" in an analogy to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I was saying Church Fathers could have written things about it that would be a sin to believe today, even though it was not a sin to do so before it was defined as a dogma. That does not imply that flat earth is a sin. I just wanted a clear illustration of how Fathers could be wrong.
Of course it's obvious Pope Leo did not say anything about the flat earth. He never condemned it, and he NEVER condemned those Fathers of the Church who wrote about the flat earth. So you are wrong to say that we cannot take a scriptural basis for something that Fathers of the Church have already used a scriptural basis for.Pope Leo did not condemn the Fathers but he made it very clear that they could be wrong.
Your view that we can't base on scripture is moot. We are not treating scripture with some new-fangled view - it's a view that's already been described by the Church Fathers. We aren't inventing anything new. YOU are the one who is terribly uncomfortable with what the Church Fathers wrote regarding the earth. We are not uncomfortable with it.
The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.As the encyclical says next, when discussing physical matters, unless the Fathers unanimously and explicitly identify it as pertaining to faith, they are expressing their personal opinions. Anything that does not fit those criteria cannot be treated as a Catholic interpretation of Scripture.
Pope Leo did not condemn the Fathers but he made it very clear that they could be wrong.
As the encyclical says next, when discussing physical matters, unless the Fathers unanimously and explicitly identify it as pertaining to faith, they are expressing their personal opinions. Anything that does not fit those criteria cannot be treated as a Catholic interpretation of Scripture.
I am not uncomfortable with what they wrote. I object to you disregarding Pope Leo and treating their personal opinions on flat earth as somehow binding on Catholics or as a model for interpreting Scripture.
We are allowed to treat scripture in a way that the Church Fathers treated it. It has not been condemned by any authority to do so. It doesn't matter that it's not Church teaching that the earth is flat. It wasn't Church teaching when the Church Fathers described it either. So what. Get over it. It's not forbidden to believe in a flat earth, as the Church Fathers did.It is not forbidden to believe in flat earth. It is incorrect, however, to present flat earth as the true Catholic position, taught by Scripture and the Fathers, as many have done countless times on this forum. In order to do that, one must reject the Church teaching given in Providentissimus Deus and elsewhere.
You object to a great many things, Jayne, so it's not surprising that you think we are rejecting Church teaching. Accusing Catholics of rejecting Church teaching is a coward's way out. There's no teaching that say that we cannot believe in a flat earth. I'll keep reminding you of that. Over and over again if need be.
So the latest attack on flat-earthers to accuse them of rejecting Church teaching. Who put you up to this latest accusation? Who are you getting this information from?::)
It is not forbidden to believe in flat earth. It is incorrect, however, to present flat earth as the true Catholic position, taught by Scripture and the Fathers, as many have done countless times on this forum. In order to do that, one must reject the Church teaching given in Providentissimus Deus and elsewhere.
It is also not forbidden to believe in a spherical earth. This belief is not a rejection of Catholicism, Scripture, or the Fathers. It is not an embracing of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or modernism. It is a completely acceptable view for Catholics that has never be condemned.
I already know that believing in a flat earth is not condemned so I don't need reminding. It might be more useful to keep reminding yourself over and over that there is no teaching that people can't believe in a globe earth.
::)
I should not have to say this, but I will. Nobody put me up to it. My ideas come from reading Church teaching and thinking about it.
I don't believe that.You believe a lot of strange things.
When I say that "Scripture did not intend to teach about science" I am trying to paraphrase Leo XIII saying ...
I can see that you are using the phrase "Scripture doesn't always intend to use terms in a absolute or scientifically-precise way". That is just what I have been trying to say all along. Do you really think it will be clearer to people if I put it that way?
Of course it's obvious Pope Leo did not say anything about the flat earth. He never condemned it, and he NEVER condemned those Fathers of the Church who wrote about the flat earth. So you are wrong to say that we cannot take a scriptural basis for something that Fathers of the Church have already used a scriptural basis for.
I bet some of you flat earthers have been on the news demonstrating how the tornado sounded ripping through your trailer park. Y’all just love outlandish attention. Those folks laughing are laughing at you—not with you.We get the last laugh; God created the flat earth. :laugh2: :incense: :applause:
That's what I figured. I know you meant the latter ... which is why I put that in there. It's just that the language "did not intend to teach about" in modern days has some serious modernist connotations. I spent enough time around modernist theologians to know. That's the reasoning they use to claim that there's error in Holy Scripture. Leo XIII used his language before that kind of thinking came into vogue.I had no idea it could have such connotations. I was just trying to imitate Pope Leo's phrase. Of course, I don't want to give the impression that I believe there is error in Scripture. This explains why Spiritus Paraclitus gave so much emphasis to the point that Scripture is free from error.
I bet some of you flat earthers have been on the news demonstrating how the tornado sounded ripping through your trailer park. Y’all just love outlandish attention. Those folks laughing are laughing at you—not with you.
You are perfectly entitled to interpret Scripture that way if the Church Fathers held it and the Church has not condemned it. I'm just saying that your interpretation of Scripture doesn't prove flat earth, that your interpretation COULD be wrong. Could be right too. I don't know yet.Are you saying one’s private interpretation may be wrong? Has the Church ever said anything about private interpretation?
Are you saying one’s private interpretation may be wrong? Has the Church ever said anything about private interpretation?The flat earth horizon is infallible.
http://catholicism.org/biblical-inerrancy.html
Pope Leo XIII's traditional position of "absolute inerrancy. "
"There is a LIBERAL view that limits inerrancy to those truths which are only for our salvation. "
Jaynek has definitively shown she holds the liberal view.
This is the position I am taking. I have repeatedly cited Leo XIII in my posts in this topic, precisely because I accept what he has written on it. I believe everything written in Scripture is without error. Ladislaus tells me that I may have created some confusion by my choice of wording. Here is another way to explain my view (which comes from Leo XIII). I posted something like this in another thread already:
"The traditional position, as articulated by Pope Leo XIII, is one of absolute inerrancy: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican.”2
This is the position I am taking. I have repeatedly cited Leo XIII in my posts in this topic, precisely because I accept what he has written on it. I believe everything written in Scripture is without error. Ladislaus tells me that I may have created some confusion by my choice of wording. Here is another way to explain my view (which comes from Leo XIII). I posted something like this in another thread already:The problem is, it can't be at odds with scripture. Every description of earth in scripture describes not a ball but a flat earth. And all the Fathers who TAUGHT or extrapolated on the form of the earth also describe it not as a ball, but flat with a dome.
Let's say, for example, there were a passage of Scripture that said "Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east." The intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and, according to Providentissimus Deus, this meaning would be true, inspired and without error. It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it. Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science when it uses such expressions. A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears. It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth. Therefore one could believe that the earth moves around the sun without suggesting that there were any error in Scripture.
Rather than saying there is any error in Scripture, I am saying that some flat earthers err in their interpretation of Scripture by taking figurative expressions as if they were statements about science. When the Church teaches us the literal sense of Scripture is without error, she is talking about the intended meaning of passages, not telling us to take figurative expressions literally. Many people here misunderstand this fundamental point. I am telling you that you are a wrong, not saying that Scripture is wrong. I completely accept everything taught by Leo XIII and Benedict XV about Scripture.
This is the position I am taking. I have repeatedly cited Leo XIII in my posts in this topic, precisely because I accept what he has written on it. I believe everything written in Scripture is without error. Ladislaus tells me that I may have created some confusion by my choice of wording. Here is another way to explain my view (which comes from Leo XIII). I posted something like this in another thread already:You struggle with comprehension.
Let's say, for example, there were a passage of Scripture that said "Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east." The intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and, according to Providentissimus Deus, this meaning would be true, inspired and without error. It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it. Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science when it uses such expressions. A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears. It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth. Therefore one could believe that the earth moves around the sun without suggesting that there were any error in Scripture.
Rather than saying there is any error in Scripture, I am saying that some flat earthers err in their interpretation of Scripture by taking figurative expressions as if they were statements about science. When the Church teaches us the literal sense of Scripture is without error, she is talking about the intended meaning of passages, not telling us to take figurative expressions literally. Many people here misunderstand this fundamental point. I am telling you that you are a wrong, not saying that Scripture is wrong. I completely accept everything taught by Leo XIII and Benedict XV about Scripture.
The passages flat earthers refer to on the shape are not figurative, nor are they a meraphorical part of a story, as in her example.
You struggle with comprehension.
You hold the second view, the liberal one, an error. Pope Leo holds the traditional view.
You do NOT hold Pope Leo's view.
Nor do ypu agree with Benedict XV that the individual words are infallible.
You stand in contradiction to both Popes.
The problem is, it can't be at odds with scripture. Every description of earth in scripture describes not a ball but a flat earth. And all the Fathers who TAUGHT or extrapolated on the form of the earth also describe it not as a ball, but flat with a dome.Believing the earth is a globe is not at odds with Scripture. Any passage that describes the earth as flat was not meant to "penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time" (Providentissimus Deus, 18.) Any such passage was not intended to teach us about "the essential nature of the things of the visible universe" but to teach us truths "profitable unto salvation." The intended meaning of these passages is without error, but, by taking the figurative literally, you are making your own meaning.
She does nothing of the sort.Yes, she does.
And you are entitled to that opinion. Other good Catholics have disagreed with you.Also, you never answered my question: you find flat earth passages off-putting, as you stated. Do you find the other literal dogmatic truths equally off putting? Eat my flesh drink my blood?
Also, you never answered my question: you find flat earth passages off-putting, as you stated. Do you find the other literal dogmatic truths equally off putting? Eat my flesh drink my blood?
Spot the metaphor:
"Hast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"
Him: literal
Spread out: literal
Sky: literal
Strong: literal
As: like
Looking glass: metaphor
The Firmament of the sky is strong and like a looking glass.
I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint. Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting. I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.This:
I read the link. It supports what I am saying.
The question that you quoted concerned historical facts related to faith, such as " the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer."
Note that there is nothing in this list about the shape of the earth or the arrangement of the cosmos.
Only a few pitiful trailer park trash types sincerely believe flat earth.
Most flat earth proponents are NWO/kike provocateurs angling to make traditionalists appear generally as ignorant as trailer park trash.
It is a matter of historical record that the dominant model of geocentrism, at the time Copernicus and Galileo challenged it, was the Ptolemaic one presented in the Almagest. This posits a spherical earth. It was compatible with Aristotle's science (which also had a model of geocentrism in which the earth was a sphere) which, after the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, was accepted by virtually all Catholics. Almost any history written of the period would say so, starting from Wikipedia to the most scholarly.
If a Catholic believes that Scripture speaks only to matters of faith, and not to the sciences, then I have to assume that they also believe, as the modernists do, that faith and science are to be kept separate.
Here's a quote from Pope St. Pius X, on the Doctrine of the Modernists, from Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I'm quoting part of #16, called "Faith and Science." He is speaking to the doctrine of the modernists regarding faith and science:
#16:
Faith and Science
"Having reached this point, venerable brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be 'unknowable' for it. Hence, each has a separate field assigned for it: science is to be entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissention between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore be in contradiction."
Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.
Of course, faith and science are connected. They are both at the service of truth and should work together. Faith, however, is the greater and science must always submit to faith if there seems to be a conflict. The dogmas of our faith are infallible while science is never infallible. It is always subject to change.
However, when people misunderstand Church teachings and interpret Scripture in opposition to how we should, this not part of our Faith and is very much fallible.
See my thread on why the first premise of Ptolemy's Almagest is in error.
The Almagest was used in universities at the time. It is a stretch to say that it was accepted by virtually all Catholics. It was used because it was thorough in other areas. Not because it was globe earth. The globe earth idea has been around since pythagoras.
"Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see"
All literal, no metaphor.
This is impossible on a globe. Globe earth renders this passage false.
But the Bible cannot err, therefore the globe earth is what is false.
"Every eye shall see" is only possible because earth is a flat plane.
This:
Are the truths of the Bible dogmatic or not?
The Bible says earth is a compass with a dome over it - not a globe.
Do you think that is not true?
Could you quote that particular passage?Genesis 1
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1:22&version=DRA)
How can a tent cover a sphere?
I can see it was not clear enough for you to understand, but I would not go as far as to call it incoherent.
Jaynek,
That's not what the question I quoted said. I quote question 3 and you quote question 7 back at me pretending that this is question 3. Re-read your post and see the incoherence.
The reason I quoted question 3 is because, and I requote : foundation of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time,Your quote was immediately preceded by the words: "Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the ..." Taken as a whole we can see that you quoted one item from a list of Scriptural facts that cannot be questioned because they are foundational to our faith. I, of course, agree that it wrong to question the fact that the creation of all things was accomplished by God at the beginning of time. I agree that it is an important part of the faith. It is even part of the Creed.
It was to emphasise the importance of this.
You are trying to deny that people cannot insist that this is part of the faith and contained in scripture. This is a very serious sin on your part. And you should repent. They have every right to be of this opinion.
You are trying to deny that people cannot insist that this is part of the faith and contained in scripture. This is a very serious sin on your part. And you should repent. They have every right to be of this opinion.It is wrong to insist that Scripture must be interpreted in a literalistic way and that therefore Catholics are obliged to believe in a flat earth. This position involves rejecting the teaching of Providentissimus Deus. This is the sin that needs to be repented of.
Nowhere does it say that we must believe in the globe. Yet you keep insisting on it. You try to pretend that you are not.
You claiming that people misunderstand Church teachings is based on the presumption that the earth is round. Which is a false assumption. You don't want to challenge that false assumption by questioning the false science.No, it has nothing to do with assuming that the earth is a globe. Ladislaus, who is open to the possibility that the earth is flat has, like me, expressed that he thinks it is wrong to interpret Scripture so as to claim that belief in a flat earth is part of the Catholic faith. He seems to understand Providentissimus Deus much as I do.
Good work Meg. With this and other quotes, we can definitely close in on Jaynek and expose her pertinacity.
Scripture teaches that there is a firmament, a dome of a hard material above us, that divides what is above (water and the heavens) from the earth below.A person can only make such a claim by ignoring the principles taught by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus.
It is interesting that Jaynek is working so closely with the God-haters DeGrasse-Tyson, Dawkins, Hawking, and Sagan in their heliocentric, billions-years old model of cosmology. Not the Biblical one.Maybe Janek is a Freemason.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.The phrase "spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1:22&version=DRA)" is a figure of speech called a simile. Here is a definition:
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1:22&version=DRA)
How can a tent cover a sphere?
a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or asThis passage does not mean that the heavens are a tent or even exactly like a tent. It just means that it resembles a tent in some way. This verse is part of a larger passage describing the greatness and power of God. That is what is important here. We are not supposed to interpret it in a literalistic way to figure out the shape of the earth. We are supposed to consider God's power.
Maybe Janek is a Freemason.No, just an average garden-variety Novus Ordoite.
Genesis 1
6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
4 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
Happenby wrote"The phrase "spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1:22&version=DRA)" is a figure of speech called a simile. Here is a definition:Madam, a simile must be similar to the thing the words relate it to. You cannot cover a globe with a tent. But you can cover a flat earth with a dome that fits over the top like a tent, above which is heaven, etc. God is very clearly showing the latter. Its really is very simple.
This passage does not mean that the heavens are a tent or even exactly like a tent. It just means that it resembles a tent in some way. This verse is part of a larger passage describing the greatness and power of God. That is what is important here. We are not supposed to interpret it in a literalistic way to figure out the shape of the earth. We are supposed to consider God's power.
But thanks for providing a Scripture verse that says the earth is a globe.
Happenby wrote"The phrase "spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1:22&version=DRA)" is a figure of speech called a simile. Here is a definition:Yea, the translation is certainly not accurate because the word in the Greek means circle. But you're welcome. Enjoy the free mistaken translation that makes you think you're right. You're still not right, but at least you can go feel better about yourself.
This passage does not mean that the heavens are a tent or even exactly like a tent. It just means that it resembles a tent in some way. This verse is part of a larger passage describing the greatness and power of God. That is what is important here. We are not supposed to interpret it in a literalistic way to figure out the shape of the earth. We are supposed to consider God's power.
But thanks for providing a Scripture verse that says the earth is a globe.
It is wrong to insist that Scripture must be interpreted in a literalistic wayYou LIE.
What if the tent was spherical in nature?Ever seen a spherical tent? Didn't think so.
Hey Meg, this is the kind of garbage I'm talking about. "Maybe Jaynek is a Freemason"?? When one is a Dogmatic Flatearther and believes that one cannot be saved without the hidden knowledge of the shape of the Earth, one says things like this all willy-nilly with no proof. Just blind hatred spewing out of their mouths.AES, some are more reasonable to speak to than others. I feel that over the year I've had decent discussions with some. I think its quite clear that TiE and Smedley spew insults and won't give answers. For all their talk about how believing in a globe is 'blasphemous,' 'mockery of God,' 'stupid' and 'delivers souls to the devil'...neither can answer two basic things:
I think that one could make a case that these Dogmatic Flatearthers are actually Gnostics. They are claiming this knowledge is from Scripture, but Scripture makes no mention of it. It's all a ruse to distract us from beneficial Church Teaching that will actually aid us spiritually.
Ever seen a spherical tent? Didn't think so.
AES, some are more reasonable to speak to than others. I feel that over the year I've had decent discussions with some. I think its quite clear that TiE and Smedley spew insults and won't give answers. For all their talk about how believing in a globe is 'blasphemous,' 'mockery of God,' 'stupid' and 'delivers souls to the devil'...neither can answer two basic things:You are a dope (there's your insult!) if you are unable to grasp how globe earth delivers souls to the devil.
1) If the Earth really is flat and this is a global idea is a conspiracy how does it benefit the conspirators. Smedley's only response is that it gives souls to the devil. My question went unanswered. How does believing the earth is a globe send souls to the devil. Is it a mortal sin? Is it blasphemous? It sounds like you think its heresy putting people in mortal sin. Is this the case? TiE said he believes in flat earth because he is a Catholic and suggests that Jaynek is a freemason. The irony makes me laugh...This leads me to question 2.
2) If it is truly Catholic to teach flat earth as implied by all the righteous posts, then what is the name of you priest/order/sect that teaches flat earth? SSPX/Ex-SSPX/OMLC/SSPV/Whatever anyone?....IF this is such a fundamental issue that TiE and Smedley feel the need to condemn and insult, what's the name of a single traditional priest that warns souls away from global earth thoughts? Why isn't it in the Baltimore Catechism?...Really just looking for TiE and Smedley to explain...
It's LIKE a tent ... in some way. It's not an actual physical tent, now, is it? Could just be reference to something being stretched and pulled tight.It is an actual physical barrier....that is like a tent.
(https://www.google.com/search?q=spherical+tents&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ZnJv9jzQV7Bj5M%253A%252CzuEl5w13QGanFM%252C_&usg=__Epwvy_eU1Pvu5zi2l-etwLDHxs0%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip-4-tmbfYAhXByFQKHU9AA_cQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=Vjl_6GocxRuH1M:&spf=1514824599020)Spherical tent (https://www.google.com/search?q=spherical+tents&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ZnJv9jzQV7Bj5M%253A%252CzuEl5w13QGanFM%252C_&usg=__Epwvy_eU1Pvu5zi2l-etwLDHxs0%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip-4-tmbfYAhXByFQKHU9AA_cQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=Vjl_6GocxRuH1M:&spf=1514824599020)You're an idiot. There's your insult.
Can't post pictures from this computer, but this link shows that there are some spherical tents that could hold balls inside them. Ridiculous!
You are a dope (there's your insult!) if you are unable to grasp how globe earth delivers souls to the devil.Man you are awesome...I really must be a dope...I guess you are smart than 99.99999999999% of the rest of population Ok so you are saying if you believe in globe earth and it tendencies you will end up believing that God doesn't care about us and we will drop any faith. Sounds serious...so going back to question number two
Globe earth is a belief in science and man over God and His revealed Truth of the Bible.
If you believe you are insignificant spinning thru some back corner of the universe, you will likely conclude He doesn't care about us and drop any faith.
But if you believe He is right over your head and you are the ONLY Creation He made, you just might stay true to His Word.
Man you are awesome...I really must be a dope...I guess you are smart than 99.99999999999% of the rest of population Ok so you are saying if you believe in globe earth and it tendencies you will end up believing that God doesn't care about us and we will drop any faith. Sounds serious...so going back to question number twoDon't know.
"If it is truly Catholic to teach flat earth as implied by all the righteous posts, then what is the name of you priest/order/sect that teaches flat earth? SSPX/Ex-SSPX/OMLC/SSPV/Whatever anyone?....IF this is such a fundamental issue that you the need to condemn and insult, what's the name of a single traditional priest that warns souls away from global earth thoughts? Why isn't it in the Baltimore Catechism?."
Don't know.Just to clarify boss, what did you mean that the faithful made it before the priest did?
Why don't you ask them?
They received the same indoctrination you did.
The faithful made it before the priests did.
Hey Meg, this is the kind of garbage I'm talking about. "Maybe Jaynek is a Freemason"?? When one is a Dogmatic Flatearther and believes that one cannot be saved without the hidden knowledge of the shape of the Earth, one says things like this all willy-nilly with no proof. Just blind hatred spewing out of their mouths.
I think that one could make a case that these Dogmatic Flatearthers are actually Gnostics. They are claiming this knowledge is from Scripture, but Scripture makes no mention of it. It's all a ruse to distract us from beneficial Church Teaching that will actually aid us spiritually.
Just to clarify boss, what did you mean that the faithful made it before the priest did?Meaning the faithful found their way out of 500 years of globe indoctrination before the priests.
Meaning the faithful found their way out of 500 years of globe indoctrination before the priests.ok thank you for clarifying, that's what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure. What you are saying is that the 50 of you traditional Catholics in the entire world that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination. There are no traditional priests or priestly groups that preach the flat earth or the dangers of a globe yet. Without the help of the Church or any single priest who has had 500 years of indoctrination, you and TiE have determined that the purpose of this vast globular conspiracy is to lead souls to hell, and those that believe the earth is a globe is a pagan, blasphemer, heretic, freemason, and over not a real Catholic. Alright, when you find a traditional clergyman to back up your accusations, let me know.
Good work Meg. With this and other quotes, we can definitely close in on Jaynek and expose her pertinacity.
ok thank you for clarifying, that's what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure. What you are saying is that the 50 of you traditional Catholics in the entire world that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination. There are no traditional priests or priestly groups that preach the flat earth or the dangers of a globe yet. Without the help of the Church or any single priest who has had 500 years of indoctrination, you and TiE have determined that the purpose of this vast globular conspiracy is to lead souls to hell, and those that believe the earth is a globe is a pagan, blasphemer, heretic, freemason, and over not a real Catholic. Alright, when you find a traditional clergyman to back up your accusations, let me know.
(https://www.google.com/search?q=spherical+tents&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ZnJv9jzQV7Bj5M%253A%252CzuEl5w13QGanFM%252C_&usg=__Epwvy_eU1Pvu5zi2l-etwLDHxs0%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip-4-tmbfYAhXByFQKHU9AA_cQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=Vjl_6GocxRuH1M:&spf=1514824599020)Spherical tent (https://www.google.com/search?q=spherical+tents&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ZnJv9jzQV7Bj5M%253A%252CzuEl5w13QGanFM%252C_&usg=__Epwvy_eU1Pvu5zi2l-etwLDHxs0%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip-4-tmbfYAhXByFQKHU9AA_cQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=Vjl_6GocxRuH1M:&spf=1514824599020)
No Catholic priest would say that. This has nothing to do with me. That's changing to subject, though. I don't have a dog in this race, but these two guys are making some severe claims, accusations, and condemnations of other Catholics.
:laugh1:
I am not hostile to flat earth, but this is funny.
Be careful...your Dogmatic Flatearthyism is showing again. Rein it in.
Be careful...your Dogmatic Flatearthyism is showing again. Rein it in.
Yes, Jayne doesn't want Scripture to have anything to do with the natural sciences. And apparently, the Modernists don't want the Catholic faith involved in science. So there's something in common there.I do not believe nor have I stated the idea condemned in Pascendi. I have been quoting or paraphrasing Providentissimus Deus ("the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation) and mean exactly what Pope Leo XIII means by it.
Pope St. Pius X wrote (to reiterate) in Pascendi, regarding the belief of the Modernists and science:
"Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissention between faith and science, for if each keeps to its own ground they can never meet and therefore be in contradiction."
I think that the above quote is important, because if science and faith are separate, they cannot be in contradiction, such as, for example, in the teaching of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution (now an accepted "truth" by many in the world) contradicts the Catholic faith and scripture. But if science is separate, it doesn't really seem to matter if the contradiction exists. And that's how modernism works - on contradiction and ambiguity.
No, not changing the subject. You pointed out that there aren't any traditional Catholic priests who support FE. Which is true. But why would numbers really matter so much to you? They don't support your Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ religion either, right?Its been argued that FE must be believed as a matter of faith, otherwise you are a pagan, heretic, blasphemer, leading souls to hell, stupid, etc....without the support of a single traditional priest supporting that ideology...goes as far as TiE saying that he is a real Catholic because he believes in FE and Smedley thinking he is part of the few faithful that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination and that the Church will catch up soon. For all the bluster of accusations and condemnation, there is no priest that thinks this way. If they are taking their version of Catholicism this far... Do Tie and Smed call their parish priest stupid, pagan, heretic, blasphemer....if they feel that someone who won't convert to FE is these things, then how they can receive any sacrament from them? Would that not be a sin in it self? Its a double standard and they get to play tough online.
Be careful...your Dogmatic Flatearthyism is showing again. Rein it in.No AES, while I do believe that she changed the subject...see my previous post...she has the right of it.
Its been argued that FE must be believed as a matter of faith, otherwise you are a pagan, heretic, blasphemer, leading souls to hell, stupid, etc....without the support of a single traditional priest supporting that ideology...goes as far as TiE saying that he is a real Catholic because he believes in FE and Smedley thinking he is part of the few faithful that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination and that the Church will catch up soon. For all the bluster of accusations and condemnation, there is no priest that thinks this way. If they are taking their version of Catholicism this far... Do Tie and Smed call their parish priest stupid, pagan, heretic, blasphemer....if they feel that someone who won't convert to FE is these things, then how they can receive any sacrament from them? Would that not be a sin in it self? Its a double standard and they get to play tough online.
I do believe that its changing the subject. Why does it matter? You've ready the large font bolt type condemning and accusing of hellfire. That is not discussing, educating, or trying to convert....where to they get to condemn hell something that NOT ONE priest supports? I'm arguing against FE, I've never one argued anything on here from a masonic point of view or from the view point of the protestant religion of which I belong to now.. And for all that have asked both public and private I have been open and honest.
On second thought, may I ask you about what it is that I said in my post to Rough Ashlar that bothered you?Yes AES, I am. I have been asked through PMs, and openly on another FE thread. I answered openly and honestly each time...a lot to retype, but the short answer is yes. Meg knew about it from a previous conversation. That is why she brought it up, to divert from my argument. See below
The part where you say "They don't support your Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ religion either, right?" because he is not a Flatearther. Is rough a freemason?
Its been argued that FE must be believed as a matter of faith, otherwise you are a pagan, heretic, blasphemer, leading souls to hell, stupid, etc....without the support of a single traditional priest supporting that ideology...goes as far as TiE saying that he is a real Catholic because he believes in FE and Smedley thinking he is part of the few faithful that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination and that the Church will catch up soon. For all the bluster of accusations and condemnation, there is no priest that thinks this way. If they are taking their version of Catholicism this far... Do Tie and Smed call their parish priest stupid, pagan, heretic, blasphemer....if they feel that someone who won't convert to FE is these things, then how they can receive any sacrament from them? Would that not be a sin in it self? Its a double standard and they get to play tough online.
Now that you are clearly admitting that you are a Protestant and freemason, you are taking it upon yourself to show the extreme side of traditional Catholics. I get that. Well, the reason you left the Catholic faith had to do with a lot more than just the flat earth espoused by some traditional Catholics, right?He clearly admitted it some time ago.
I see. I must say that you are outside the Catholic Church and that puts you on the path to hell. I have to tell you this in charity because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I hope that you convert to the Catholic Church, it is the only form of Christianity.
Meg, I am sorry for wrongfully accusing you of calling him something he isn't.
A non-Catholic is often capable of understanding Catholic teaching and able to discuss it intelligently. Try to address his actual arguments.
If you have a problem with what TiE writes, then bring it up with him.Meg, if you back track my posts on this thread, I did specifically ask TIE and Smed to reply, and had a back and forth with Smed.
Now that you are clearly admitting that you are a Protestant and freemason, you are taking it upon yourself to show the extreme side of traditional Catholics. I get that. Well, the reason you left the Catholic faith had to do with a lot more than just the flat earth espoused by some traditional Catholics, right?Meg, i clearly admitted it in the other thread when you asked, and in the private messages with you. No I mean no harm anyone, but strong disagree with FE. You are right, the reason I left had nothing to do with FE. I still have family in the spectrum of tradition and that is why I am here. Call me crazy but I do have a problem with one tradition Catholic acting hypocritically and calling another traditional Catholic a blasphemer, pagan, heretic, etc without any single priest backing up their ideology....and receiving sacraments from a priest that falls under their definition of a blasphemer, pagan, heretic, etc?
Meg, if you back track my posts on this thread, I did specifically ask TIE and Smed to reply, and had a back and forth with Smed.
Meg, i clearly admitted it in the other thread when you asked, and in the private messages with you. No I mean no harm anyone, but strong disagree with FE. You are right, the reason I left had nothing to do with FE. I still have family in the spectrum of tradition and that is why I am here. Call me crazy but I do have a problem with one tradition Catholic acting hypocritically and calling another traditional Catholic a blasphemer, pagan, heretic, etc without any single priest backing up their ideology....and receiving sacraments from a priest that falls under their definition of a blasphemer, pagan, heretic, etc?
Evidently you are glad that a Protestant freemason is on your globe earth side. Good luck with that.Actually, I am not glad about it. Nevertheless, virtually shouting "FREEMASON FREEMASON!" whenever he posts does not address his arguments.
Actually, I am not glad about it. Nevertheless, virtually shouting "FREEMASON FREEMASON!" whenever he posts does not address his arguments.
One good thing about his presence is that it illustrates the scandal caused to non-Catholics when trads carry on like this about Flat Earth. They can see how wrong it is and it is can be an obstacle to them accepting the the true Faith.
As pretty much any freemason would?You have already said there is not one Catholic Priest that believes in FE
I personally don't believe in FE. I have never met one person in person that believes in FE. There might be freemasons that believe in FE, I do not know. It isn't something that has ever been brought up in conversation or otherwise.
You have already said there is not one Catholic Priest that believes in FE
Well then, why don't you set out to convert Rough Ashlar back to the Catholic Church, Jayne?The fact that he is not Catholic has been of concern to me ever since he mentioned it and I have thought about what I can do to help bring him back to the Catholic Church. Why use such a tone to discuss this? We are talking about somebody's salvation.
Oh wait, I see that you are doing that already by defending the globe earth (which freemasons agree with) and going against the flat earth, right?
That's okay. I realized after you posted that that you were not aware that he is a freemason. He says that he's been honest and open about it, but that's not true. I think that very few here have been aware that we have a Protestant freemason on the forum.What have I been dishonest about? Its not like I took a saints name or a latin phrase and hid behind it. I used masonic term, and have answered you and everyone else honestly when asked. You knew about this a while ago when we discussed it.
I would be even more worried if he were on the side of the flat earthers. Thankfully, that's not the case. :)
The fact that he is not Catholic has been of concern to me ever since he mentioned it and I have thought about what I can do to help bring him back to the Catholic Church. Why use such a tone to discuss this? We are talking about somebody's salvation.
I doubt that it is significant that freemasons agree with globe earth since the vast majority of people, including traditional Catholics, also agree with globe earth.
What have I been dishonest about? Its not like I took a saints name or a latin phrase and hid behind it. I used masonic term, and have answered you and everyone else honestly when asked. You knew about this a while ago when we discussed it.
Why is that you are making a big deal about it now opposed to back then? Why not counter my argument?
Except that there are really quite a few trads who believe in a flat earth, given how few trads there really are in the world. Look at the numbers of flat earth trads just on this forum.
Why use such a tone to discuss this? We are talking about somebody's salvation.
Oh, so now it's about someone's salvation, and if I'm not nice to the resident protestant freemason, he might not want to ever be a Catholic again, right?Nonsense that you made up, not that I wrote.
Heaven help us! What nonsense!
A Vatican ll moment if I ever saw one. Yikes.
So your fellow freemasons at your freemasonic lodge don't talk about the globe earth, or the flat earth? Well, there are literally thousands of freemasonic lodges in the U.S., and even more around the world. You don't know what they discuss in all of them.That's very true, there are a lot of them and I don't know what's discussed in each one. I hate to be a shatter your conspiratorial ideas, but its pretty well established that most everyone believes the earth is a globe. Even you admitted in the Catholic church (NO and tradition) this is the case. It would be like talking about water being wet. We discussed in private messages why I was here. I have family across the traditional spectrum still and Cathinfo has a wide range of info to know what's going on. I choose to use some free time to debate FE on here? If you are in the right, why does it bother you Meg. Why didn't make a big deal about this on Dec 1st when we spoke or on that one thread. Why choose to do this now, instead of discuss my actual argument?
That's very true, there are a lot of them and I don't know what's discussed in each one. I hate to be a shatter your conspiratorial ideas, but its pretty well established that most everyone believes the earth is a globe. Even you admitted in the Catholic church (NO and tradition) this is the case. It would be like talking about water being wet. We discussed in private messages why I was here. I have family across the traditional spectrum still and Cathinfo has a wide range of info to know what's going on. I choose to use some free time to debate FE on here? If you are in the right, why does it bother you Meg. Why didn't make a big deal about this on Dec 1st when we spoke or on that one thread. Why choose to do this now, instead of discuss my actual argument?
It shouldn't bother me that a protestant freemason such as yourself is posting on Cath info, or that JayneK keeps defending you?I have said that I am concerned about his salvation and that I have a problem with ad hominem arguments. That is defending him?
I have said that I am concerned about his salvation and that I have a problem with ad hominem arguments. That is defending him?
::)
You've done nothing but defend the freemason for the last two pages. Why are you being dishonest about that?You are mischaracterizing my posts as defending a freemason. What I am defending is logic. You have been committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. This bothers me whenever I see it, no matter what people are involved or what they believe.
You've done nothing but defend the freemason for the last two pages. Why are you being dishonest about that?I didn't see her defend me, she was just calling you out on not addressing my argument (that was originally directed to TiE and smed). You have known about me for the last month... to the day. Why derail my argument today when you could have done all this within the last 30 days.
Its been argued that FE must be believed as a matter of faith, otherwise you are a pagan, heretic, blasphemer, leading souls to hell, stupid, etc....without the support of a single traditional priest supporting that ideology...goes as far as TiE saying that he is a real Catholic because he believes in FE and Smedley thinking he is part of the few faithful that have broken through the 500 years of indoctrination and that the Church will catch up soon. For all the bluster of accusations and condemnation, there is no priest that thinks this way. If they are taking their version of Catholicism this far... Do Tie and Smed call their parish priest stupid, pagan, heretic, blasphemer....if they feel that someone who won't convert to FE is these things, then how they can receive any sacrament from them? Would that not be a sin in it self? Its a double standard and they get to play tough online.The FE awakening is much bigger than you suggest.
I do believe that its changing the subject. Why does it matter? You've ready the large font bolt type condemning and accusing of hellfire. That is not discussing, educating, or trying to convert....where to they get to condemn hell something that NOT ONE priest supports? I'm arguing against FE, I've never one argued anything on here from a masonic point of view or from the view point of the protestant religion of which I belong to now.. And for all that have asked both public and private I have been open and honest.
I can see it was not clear enough for you to understand, but I would not go as far as to call it incoherent.
You quoted question 3. I first made the point that a docuмent that you yourself had cited contained a section that supported what I was saying and quoted question 7 to demonstrate this. Then I went on to discuss question 3 and your claims about it. In hindsight, I think it would have been clearer the other way around.
Your quote was immediately preceded by the words: "Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the ..." Taken as a whole we can see that you quoted one item from a list of Scriptural facts that cannot be questioned because they are foundational to our faith. I, of course, agree that it wrong to question the fact that the creation of all things was accomplished by God at the beginning of time. I agree that it is an important part of the faith. It is even part of the Creed.
You seem to understand what you quoted as saying that everything pertaining to creation should be understood in a literalistic way, but that is not correct. For example, further on in the same docuмent, we see that it is not necessary to interpret the seven days of creation as literal 24 hour periods. Please see the thread I started on what the expression "literal sense of Scripture" means for more details.
It is wrong to insist that Scripture must be interpreted in a literalistic way and that therefore Catholics are obliged to believe in a flat earth. This position involves rejecting the teaching of Providentissimus Deus. This is the sin that needs to be repented of.
It is quite true that nowhere does it say that we must believe in a globe shaped earth. It does not follow from this that a flat earth is part of the Catholic faith. I keep insisting that it is wrong to believe in a flat earth because one mistakenly thinks it is an obligatory part of the faith. It may be acceptable to believe in a flat earth for other reasons.
No, it has nothing to do with assuming that the earth is a globe. Ladislaus, who is open to the possibility that the earth is flat has, like me, expressed that he thinks it is wrong to interpret Scripture so as to claim that belief in a flat earth is part of the Catholic faith. He seems to understand Providentissimus Deus much as I do.
It seems that kiwiboy wants to establish that I am a heretic for believing in a spherical earth. I think it is fair to call someone with such a goal a "dogmatic flat earther." It is interesting that he sees Meg as working with him on this goal when she denies being such a thing.
I never said that everything relating to be creation in a literalistic way. The Bible is not a science book. But you are wrong to attack people for interpreting it in a literalistic way. Because the science supports us on certain points notbaly, the non curvature of the earth.Taking a passage about the Second Coming, the greatness of God, or some other truth of the Faith, ignoring its actual subject, and reading into it implications about the shape of the earth, is wrong. And it is not what the Church means when she teaches us to use literal interpretation. Fathers, Doctors and popes have taught that your approach to interpretation is wrong. Private interpretation of Scripture, ignoring principles given in authoritative teaching is wrong. Insisting that others join you in your error is wrong.
It is therefore NOT wrong to insist that certain point be interpretated in a literalistic way, ESPECIALLY when science supports that point.
So your sin to repent of is attacking people over this particular point and attacks on people intrepreting scripture literally in general.
Taking a passage about the Second Coming, the greatness of God, or some other truth of the Faith, ignoring its actual subject, and reading into it implications about the shape of the earth, is wrong. And it is not what the Church means when she teaches us to use literal interpretation. Fathers, Doctors and popes have taught that your approach to interpretation is wrong. Private interpretation of Scripture, ignoring principles given in authoritative teaching is wrong. Insisting that others join you in your error is wrong.
There are no direct statements in Scripture that the earth is flat. All the "Scriptural support" comes from passages about something else that have no intention to teach about the shape of the earth. There are no magisterial statements that the earth is flat. The majority of Catholics, for at least the last thousand years, have believed the earth is a globe. It is wrong to describe Flat earth as a Catholic belief. It is even more wrong to treat it like a dogma and say or imply that those who disagree are heretics.
I don't know about the science aspect of the question, but virtually everything I have seen here from flatearthers pertaining to the theological aspect has been wrong. Even if the earth were actually flat, they would be wrong.
There may have been times when I was too harsh or impatient in my posts and I am sorry for that, but I do not repent of identifying the errors of the flat earthers.
Jayne
Go back over these quotes again http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
Notice how the Holy office condemns Galileo for an opinion which is contrary to scripture. St. Jerome makes his condemnation in the context of a commentary on scripture. The same for St. John Chrysostum.
St. Augustine uses scripture also when speaking about the solidity of the firmament(elsewhere).
They used their common sense, which science now show us all the more, and pointed to how scripture confirms all this.
It's really that simple. I don't see what your problem is. I don't see any of my fellow flat earthers insisting on a literal interpretation which would be ridiculous, but rather on something which science also shows us to be true.
I think you are creating a straw man here.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.The flat earthers are not insisting on a literal interpretation, but a literalistic one. A literal interpretation is one that considers the information that the Sacred author intends to convey. A literalistic one takes figurative language as if it were literal. When a passage is about the Second Coming, for example, the literal interpretation concerns the Second Coming. A literalistic one finds a figure of speech in the passage, treats it as literal and deduces that the earth is flat, even though it is obvious that the author had no intention to teach about this.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?
But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.
St. Augustine's commentary on discussing the shape of heaven is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with the flat earth. We haven't been discussing the shape of heaven.Pope Leo quotes this passage in Prudentissimus Deus, extending the principle concerning the shape of heaven to the "essential nature of the things of the visible universe" in general. We might guess the principle has wider application merely from reading the St. Augustine passage, but we don't need to guess since Pope Leo has spelled that out for us. Anyhow, since the shape of the earth is just like the shape of heaven in being irrelevant to salvation, it is clear to any reasonable person that the shape of the earth is one of those things that Scripture does not intend to teach.
Hey Meg, this is the kind of garbage I'm talking about. "Maybe Jaynek is a Freemason"?? When one is a Dogmatic Flatearther and believes that one cannot be saved without the hidden knowledge of the shape of the Earth, one says things like this all willy-nilly with no proof. Just blind hatred spewing out of their mouths..
I think that one could make a case that these Dogmatic Flatearthers are actually Gnostics. They are claiming this knowledge is from Scripture, but Scripture makes no mention of it. It's all a ruse to distract us from beneficial Church Teaching that will actually aid us spiritually.
.
Yes, Gnostics. Flat-earthism is gnosticism.
Pope Leo quotes this passage in Prudentissimus Deus, extending the principle concerning the shape of heaven to the "essential nature of the things of the visible universe" in general. We might guess the principle has wider application merely from reading the St. Augustine passage, but we don't need to guess since Pope Leo has spelled that out for us. Anyhow, since the shape of the earth is just like the shape of heaven in being irrelevant to salvation, it is clear to any reasonable person that the shape of the earth is one of those things that Scripture does not intend to teach.The flat earth horizon is clearly visible.
.God created the flat earth and the spiritual.
Yes, Gnostics. Flat-earthism is gnosticism.
The Church has the authority to decide that an opinion on science is contrary to Scripture and dangerous to the Faith. Evolution is a clear example of that. (Heliocentrism is less so since the condemnation was later lifted.) Lay people do not have the authority to make those sorts of claims. The Church has never taught anything like that about a globe earth.
You quote Saints who drew conclusions about physical science from Scripture long before Pope Leo taught not to. This does not cancel out his teaching so that we who know of it may ignore it. And it is ironic that you cite St. Augustine when you ignore the principle he taught:
The flat earthers are not insisting on a literal interpretation, but a literalistic one. A literal interpretation is one that considers the information that the Sacred author intends to convey. A literalistic one takes figurative language as if it were literal. When a passage is about the Second Coming, for example, the literal interpretation concerns the Second Coming. A literalistic one finds a figure of speech in the passage, treats it as literal and deduces that the earth is flat, even though it is obvious that the author had no intention to teach about this.
.
Yes, Gnostics. Flat-earthism is gnosticism.
No, I don't buy that. I've studied gnosticism. It's not gnosticism any more than geocentrism is gnosticism.I agree that it is not, strictly speaking, gnosticism. It is not helpful to refer to flat earthers as gnostics.
Jayne,Pope Leo does specify what he is talking about -- "things in no way profitable unto salvation".
I'm sorry, but the Leo XIII quote does not specify what he is talking about. He could be talking about the essential nature of dogs, or cats for all we know. You are reading globe earth into it.
But he could NOT be talking about the globe earth, because the science shows us that this is false.
Leo XIII was not a saint. Pope Francis (do you admit he is Pope by the way?) is not a saint.
Therefore Popes can be wrong against saints who are not Popes. We have enough Saint Fathers to make a convincing case. You should be careful about being so insistent on a point that you may have to admit is wrong someday.
I have already explained the intentions of flat earthers with regard to scripture. Your response adds nothing new to the discussion.
The St. Augustine quote that you just gave does not support your argument! He talks about going into the details too much when we dont have any from scripture at least. But he is adamant that the firmament is solid. This is why there is not contradiction in what he says.
.Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is gnosticism. That's what the "G" is in their rings.
Yes, Gnostics. Flat-earthism is gnosticism.
Pope Leo does specify what he is talking about -- "things in no way profitable unto salvation".
Scripture teaches about science only to the extent that it affects truths concerning salvation. For example, what Scripture teaches about original sin shows that we cannot accept a theory of evolution that contradicts that. And there are magisterial statements explicitly stating this. There is no good reason to think that the shape of the earth pertains to salvation.
Even if the earth were flat, it would not change this principle of interpreting Scripture. One does not take a passage concerning a truth pertaining to salvation, ignore what is teaching about that truth, and search its figures of speech for implications about the nature of the physical universe. Such behaviour is a perversion of the intent of Scripture. Even if what one concludes about nature is true.
If you think that science shows the earth is flat, go ahead and talk about that science. But stop profaning Sacred Scripture.
Popes can be wrong when they do not meet the conditions for teaching infallibly, whether or not they are Saints. But when a papal teaching is confirmed by three more popes (as Prudentissimus Deus was) it is difficult to claim that they were all wrong. (And yes, I recognize Francis as pope.)
The Church Fathers can be considered infallible when they speak unanimously on a matter that they identify as belonging to faith. There is no "enough to make a convincing case". It must be unanimous and it must be identified as about faith. This is not the case regarding flat earth. As Pope Leo says: "in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect."
Even a Doctor of the Church like St. Augustine can be wrong, especially when giving opinions on science rather than faith. Other Doctors, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great, believed the earth was a globe.
You are saying that the creation is in no way profitable to salvation, that's not what Pope Leo said.More than that, we are obligated to take it literally, otherwise it was written in vain. See the teaching on the Eucharist for why.
SAINT Pius the X spoke, as I mentioned about things which touch on the foundations of our religion and then mentioned creation first before anything else.
Even if Pope Leo was referring to the flat earth and it was confirmed by some of his successors, that does not make it right! All the post conciliar popes have confirmed VII's teachings. Clearly they are ALL wrong.
To repeat myself, sacred scripture is not a science book. I am however entitled to take it literally, especially when it is backed up by science.
I was not suggesting that the Dogmatic Flatearthers are Gnostics properly speaking. That was it's own "religion". I think that they are similar in the fact that they claim to have knowledge that one needs to be saved that they can see in Scripture and hardly anybody else can. There is obviously nothing about the flat Earth in Scripture, so where is this hidden knowledge they claim to have that one needs for Salvation? It's like a little "Christian" cult that has their own dogmas.Hardly anyone?
You are saying that the creation is in no way profitable to salvation, that's not what Pope Leo said.The fact that God created everything including humanity is indeed a truth at the foundation of our religion. That is why, for example, we know that evolutionists who say that everything just came about through random events are wrong. Of course, Pius X mentioned the fact God's creation it first. It is the main point of the first chapter of Genesis. It is also the first line of the Creed.
SAINT Pius the X spoke, as I mentioned about things which touch on the foundations of our religion and then mentioned creation first before anything else.
Even if Pope Leo was referring to the flat earth and it was confirmed by some of his successors, that does not make it right! All the post conciliar popes have confirmed VII's teachings. Clearly they are ALL wrong.
To repeat myself, sacred scripture is not a science book. I am however entitled to take it literally, especially when it is backed up by science.
I was not suggesting that the Dogmatic Flatearthers are Gnostics properly speaking. That was it's own "religion". I think that they are similar in the fact that they claim to have knowledge that one needs to be saved that they can see in Scripture and hardly anybody else can. There is obviously nothing about the flat Earth in Scripture, so where is this hidden knowledge they claim to have that one needs for Salvation? It's like a little "Christian" cult that has their own dogmas.Actually, the flat earthers in this forum are showing that the Catholic Church has defended Geocentrism throughout the centuries, that heliocentrism is provably pagan and that heliocentrism is the model the world holds today, at great detriment to the masses. The proofs are there, unless one decides not to look, refuses to accept or downright lies about it.
The fact that God created everything including humanity is indeed a truth at the foundation of our religion. That is why, for example, we know that evolutionists who say that everything just came about through random events are wrong. Of course, Pius X mentioned the fact God's creation it first. It is the main point of the first chapter of Genesis. It is also the first line of the Creed.There is no argument here. The Church has clearly defended the flat geocentric earth because the Fathers of the Church prove it is scriptural. Your snippet in no way proves earth is a globe.
But that same docuмent said: "it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity" so it is not necessary to treat it as if it were scientific information".
The fact that creation happened and God is our Creator does not mean it is profitable to salvation to look at the the creation account (or an other part of Scripture) for details about science. That is not the intent and it is not necessary.
You are not entitled to take literally things that the Church teaches are not literal any more than you are entitled to take figuratively that which the Church teaches is not figurative. You are not entitled to treat as science that which the Church teaches is not meant as science. The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.
And if your insistence on flat earth makes you reluctant to accept that authority, ready to claim that multiple popes taught in error, then something is seriously evil about this belief. Our concerns about the post-Conciliar popes are based on their apparent contradiction of clear Church teaching, not due to them interfering with our pet theories about science. There was a never such a teaching about flat earth. For at least the last thousand years, virtually all Catholics believed the earth is a globe, although it was never taught as doctrine.
As she changes the subject again. I guess I will too.Yes, there were Nephilim/giants. As Scripture attests. Anyone who is made aware of the condemnation of circuмcision in the Council of Florence and still cuts their boy is definitely in trouble. To what degree is God's business.
Do you believe in the Nephilim since it's in the Book of Enoch?
Do you believe those who willingly get their sons circuмcised after seeing Florence are heretics, sinners, etc....?
There is no argument here. The Church has clearly defended the flat geocentric earth because the Fathers of the Church prove it is scriptural. Your snippet in no way proves earth is a globe.Opinions of the Fathers can only be called Church teaching when they speak unanimously on something they identify as a matter of faith. So quotes which show that some Fathers believed in a flat earth without identifying it as a matter of faith, do not show there was a Church teaching on this.
How were the giants made? Were they man, derived from Adam and Eve or did they come from the angels mating with man?Angels cannot mate with man. They have no regenerative ability. As it is written in scripture, the giants came from the daughters of Men and the Sons of God. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine say that the daughters of the pagans (daughters of men) mixed with the sons of God (sons of the true religion), men who disobediently strayed from the true lineage of God in order to be with the beautiful women of pagans. How giants came about exactly, it is unclear (probably clever machinations of the devil who understood what specific matches between individuals might create giants) but we know for certain that two groups were involved, tempted to interbreed, and it resulted in giants.
The naysayers are at it again, proving time and time again that they do not know what the Church teaches, only that they refuse to look.I am not the one claiming that multiple popes teaching on how to understand Scripture were in error. My position is consistent with various magisterial statements. Yours comes from private interpretation of Scripture. And you deny what the Church teaches when it is shown to you.
Opinions of the Fathers can only be called Church teaching when they speak unanimously on something they identify as a matter of faith. So quotes which show that some Fathers believed in a flat earth without identifying it as a matter of faith, do not show there was a Church teaching on this.That something needs to be infallibly defined before one has to believe it is false. The last sentence of yours is nonsensical. The Church condemned the model at odds with the Fathers of the Church. Just because people during the Great Apostasy have abandoned the teaching doesn't mean it went away.
After the Ptolemaic model (geocentric, globe earth) was introduced in the second century, it came to dominate Christian thinking. After the period of the Fathers, fewer and fewer Catholics believed in a flat earth and it was virtually erased by the time that Catholic universities started developing. If the Church had recognized the Fathers' personal opinions about flat earth as proven by Scripture, this could not have happened.
I am not the one claiming that multiple popes teaching on how to understand Scripture were in error. My position is consistent with various magisterial statements. Yours comes from private interpretation of Scripture. And you deny what the Church teaches when it is shown to you.Ma'am, the position of the Church preceding various thoughts of popes who came later supersedes any teaching to the contrary. The Church has spoken. It is more impossible for the Church to lay down a condemnation and be wrong than a pope to write a paper and be mistaken or misunderstood. The statements from the Church constitute a universal teaching that cannot be undone. It is common understanding that when new contradicts old, a true Catholic needs remain with antiquity.
That something needs to be infallibly defined before one has to believe it is false. The last sentence of yours is nonsensical. The Church condemned the model at odds with the Fathers of the Church. Just because people during the Great Apostasy have abandoned the teaching doesn't mean it went away.The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633 and removed the condemnation 1820. At the time of the condemnation, the main competing model, Ptolemaic geocentrism, included a globe earth. Therefore the condemnation clearly has nothing to do with the Church wanting to preserve a belief in flat earth. There was virtually no such belief at the time.
Ma'am, the position of the Church preceding various thoughts of popes who came later supersedes any teaching to the contrary. The Church has spoken. It is more impossible for the Church to lay down a condemnation and be wrong than a pope to write a paper and be mistaken or misunderstood. The statements from the Church constitute a universal teaching that cannot be undone. It is common understanding that when new contradicts old, a true Catholic needs remain with antiquity.Decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. It actually is possible for them to be wrong and/or superseded by a later papal decree. The condemnation of heliocentrism was removed in 1820.
Decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. It actually is possible for them to be wrong and/or superseded by a later papal decree. The condemnation of heliocentrism was removed in 1820.
Can you provide an official source that says that the condemnation was removed in 1820? If you've posted an official source already, then I've missed it.The decree is infallible. Say, declare, define is the simple proof. But there are others if you care to look. It is impossible for the Church to retract such a statement.
The decree is infallible. Say, declare, define is the simple proof. But there are others if you care to look. It is impossible for the Church to retract such a statement.
The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633 and removed the condemnation 1820. At the time of the condemnation, the main competing model, Ptolemaic geocentrism, included a globe earth. Therefore the condemnation clearly has nothing to do with the Church wanting to preserve a belief in flat earth. There was virtually no such belief at the time.No one can reverse a Church condemnation. It doesn't matter what the masses believed. The condemnation supported the veracity of scripture, which is always inerrant.
Yes, and that's why I hesitate to believe that the condemnation of heliocentrism was really removed.The hierarchy was duped into denying what the Church already taught. This is easily proven. And the opinions of the prelates must be relegated to the round file in the face of all truth on the matter which includes the perennial teaching of the Church, the Fathers, Scripture and true science.
So far, I've not seen any official docuмent that says that the condemnation was removed. Jayne only posted a quote from a heliocentric website as "proof." If she posted something official later, then I missed it.
The decree is infallible. Say, declare, define is the simple proof. But there are others if you care to look. It is impossible for the Church to retract such a statement.The Holy Office does not have the authority to make infallible decrees. The condemnation was overturned by a papal decree in response to an appeal. It is possible and it happened.
Opinions of the Fathers can only be called Church teaching when they speak unanimously on something they identify as a matter of faith. So quotes which show that some Fathers believed in a flat earth without identifying it as a matter of faith, do not show there was a Church teaching on this.This was specifically identified as a matter injurious to the Faith, and therefore, a matter of Faith. Read the Galileo Affair. It doesn't matter what model was the dominant model, and it doesn't matter what the people think. Because the dominant model today is heliocentrism and that is patently false.
After the Ptolemaic model (geocentric, globe earth) was introduced in the second century, it came to dominate Christian thinking. After the period of the Fathers, fewer and fewer Catholics believed in a flat earth and it was virtually erased by the time that Catholic universities started developing. If the Church had recognized the Fathers' personal opinions about flat earth as proven by Scripture, this could not have happened.
The Holy Office does not have the authority to make infallible decrees. The condemnation was overturned by a papal decree in response to an appeal. It is possible and it happened.Please. Your reasoning is faulty and baseless. The Holy Office has the authority because it did it. There was no overturning of a decree. A modification was attempted, but it is proven erroneous by the docuмentation from tradition.
I gave links to this docuмent on two different Vatican sponsored sites. Meg does not want to acknowledge it so she is pretending that this is not official enough.
No one can reverse a Church condemnation. It doesn't matter what the masses believed. The condemnation supported the veracity of scripture, which is always inerrant.
The hierarchy was duped into denying what the Church already taught. This is easily proven. And the opinions of the prelates must be relegated to the round file in the face of all truth on the matter which includes the perennial teaching of the Church, the Fathers, Scripture and true science.There is no perennial teaching of the Church, Fathers or Scripture that the earth is flat. All you have proven is that you ignore what the Church actually teaches about how to interpret Scripture and the Fathers in order to pretend that she teaches the earth is flat.
Say, declare, define is the simple proof.
That makes sense. Thanks.Exactly. Opinions that contradict traditional teachings are merely opinions. They hold no teaching authority (and no water).
It reminds me of the advocates of Vatican ll who say that the Church no longer condemns certain things, like (false) ecuмenism.
Exactly. Opinions that contradict traditional teachings are merely opinions. They hold no teaching authority (and no water).
There is no perennial teaching of the Church, Fathers or Scripture that the earth is flat. All you have proven is that you ignore what the Church actually teaches about how to interpret Scripture and the Fathers in order to pretend that she teaches the earth is flat.I have shown throughout these threads that there is not only a perennial teaching, but that it is held by all the Church Fathers who taught on the matter. Plus, it all dovetails completely with Scripture. AND the Church condemned the contrary model in 1633. AND simple empirical scientific methods of science and math back the whole of flat geocentric earth. That is a enough duck parts to call it a duck. You, on the other hand, have no proof except to say that the proof isn't there. You don't have so much as a feather of proof for your model. You are refusing to see what the Church teaches in favor of what you prefer, and that is entirely on you.
Yes, and by way of example again, the advocates of the Vll Council falsely believe that the Council was infallible and that its "teachings" must be accepted.The Council was pastoral and it says so. Nothing contrary to tradition can be tolerated. Its so simple.
Granted, the Pope's rescinding of the prohibition against heliocentrism may have been in error. But decrees of the Holy Office are generally considered to be the application of doctrine to specific cases and not Magisterial themselves ... and are therefore not inherently infallible nor irreformable.Once the Church uses the language, "say, declare, define," and bases Her statement on scripture, infallibility is implied.
As regards the doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), always remain provincial conciliar (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) is understood when, for example, the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) approves a Decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm). They call for a true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) as infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) inherent in the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), since the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance.
Once the Church uses the language, "say, declare, define," and bases Her statement on scripture, infallibility is implied.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:Thank you for this. It is an important distinction. It also says that said decrees may indeed be infallible. That this decree was certainly infallible is forwarded by two Catholic authors, namely, Paula Haigh and Fr. William Roberts.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm
QuoteTaking her information from The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement and the Ultramontane Defense of Them , compiled in 1870 by the English Catholic priest William W. Roberts, the Catholic creationist writer Paula Haigh has pointed out that a generation after Galileo's death:
"In 1664 the Church went to further lengths to extirpate his error: The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'
Quote"The importance of this docuмent cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement'" Miss Haigh therefore rightly concludes, "The evidence for papal infallibility in the Galileo case rests then upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664."
"The modern theologians have never addressed the problem posed by this Bull of Alexander VII. If they had, they would need to admit its direct papal authority and search for some subsequent docuмent by a subsequent pope that formally and specifically abrogated, i.e., nullified the 1664 Bull. But no such docuмent has ever been found or produced.QuoteShe discerns a twofold basis for its authority: "1) The decrees of the Index and the Inquisition which were based on the truth of the Church's tradition, especially as in this case it rested upon the unanimity of the Fathers and the constant position of the Church; and 2) the infallibility of the Pope speaking in his own official capacity as Head of the Church and therefore ex cathedra, even though not defining any new dogma but simply affirming tradition.
Thank you for this. It is an important distinction. It also says that said decrees may indeed be infallible. That this decree was certainly infallible is forwarded by two Catholic authors, namely, Paula Haigh and Fr. William Roberts.
I have shown throughout these threads that there is not only a perennial teaching, but that it is held by all the Church Fathers who taught on the matter. Plus, it all dovetails completely with Scripture. AND the Church condemned the contrary model in 1633. AND simple empirical scientific methods of science and math back the whole of flat geocentric earth. That is a enough duck parts to call it a duck. You, on the other hand, have no proof except to say that the proof isn't there. You don't have so much as a feather of proof for your model. You are refusing to see what the Church teaches in favor of what you prefer, and that is entirely on you.I have provided plenty of proof that one should not use Scripture to show that the earth is flat. I am not here to prove a model. I don't care if you think the earth is flat. I object to the flat earthers misrepresenting the position of the Church and using Scripture for a purpose for which it is not intended.
Exactly. When I started arguing that they should not use Scripture and the Fathers to prove flat Earth, because it's not possible, I was almost on board the Flatty train. Since seeing the type of people that advocate it and how they portray those who don't see it their way, I have since abandoned searching for the shape of the Earth.
Sure; that's their opinion. On the other hand we have a pope who, by lifting the prohibition, did not consider it infallible. Currently the status is that Catholics can entertain the notion that the earth moves without sin ... basing their conscience on the last word from that pope. Whether he was right or not is a different matter. I am a geocentrist myself and believe that the earth does NOT move. I am still undecided about flat earth.Indeed, it is only two Catholic's opinions. But these opinions maintain agreement across several realms: Tradition, Scripture, decrees of the Holy Office, true science and even mathematics. What is fascinating to me is that all these can jive perfectly, yet people maintain the opposite opinion because it might be ok to do so. They have nothing supporting their theories except NASA and modern science, entities utterly immersed in pagan religious beliefs of Pythagoras, Copernicus, Newton, Keplar, Einstein, etc. Since the decrees can be infallible, and because the language throughout the Galileo Affair was directed and emphatic, it doesn't follow that the Church was mistaken or not employing infallibility (IMHO), especially knowing how seriously the model has affected the world today. Another thing: No one can prove one of these three things was missing in the decrees of the Galileo Affair...
I have provided plenty of proof that one should not use Scripture to show that the earth is flat. I am not here to prove a model. I don't care if you think the earth is flat. I object to the flat earthers misrepresenting the position of the Church and using Scripture for a purpose for which it is not intended.The Church teaches that we must believe scripture. Not believe contrary to scripture. You have no proof that the Church teaches the opposite of what Scripture says. In fact, the Church has shown she teaches as Scripture describes. You will never prove that Scripture is too cryptic to understand, when in fact, it is only cryptic when compared to your notion that earth is a globe. Scripture's descriptions unanimously point to a flat geocentric earth and not to a ball. Building some weird premise against Scripture's description of flat earth because scripture doesn't use the words flat earth is a ridiculous endeavor sure to keep you in error.
The shape of the earth means nothing in comparison to the errors you are making about Church teaching and Scripture. I would object even if I thought the earth were flat. You have not shown a perennial teaching of flat earth. You have shown that you have no idea about what is true or real. If someone like you thinks the earth is flat that is almost evidence in itself that the earth is a globe.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove these decrees and affirmations not infallible. Also, if they are not infallible for some reason, doesn't mean they are faulty.
The Church teaches that we must believe scripture. Not believe contrary to scripture. You have no proof that the Church teaches the opposite of what Scripture says. In fact, the Church has shown she teaches as Scripture describes. You will never prove that Scripture is too cryptic to understand, when in fact, it is only cryptic when compared to your notion that earth is a globe. Scripture's descriptions unanimously point to a flat geocentric earth and not to a ball. Building some weird premise against Scripture's description of flat earth because scripture doesn't use the words flat earth is a ridiculous endeavor sure to keep you in error.Most heretics also believe Scripture. Anyone can claim to follow Scripture and make it say what he wants. Even Satan did that when tempting Our Lord.
Most heretics also believe Scripture. Anyone can claim to follow Scripture and make it say what he wants. Even Satan did that when tempting Our Lord.Most heretics believe Scripture incorrectly. I'm not claiming scripture says what I say it says. The fact that the Fathers thought scripture says what it says, and the fact that scripture says what it says proves that it says what it says. And I claim it says what the Fathers say. And more amazingly, the words it uses backs that up! You cannot prove it says the opposite of what the Fathers taught, or supports another model than what it describes. You are the one that is tipping this whole thing over so scripture doesn't fit. Scripture, the Church, the Fathers, science, mathematics are all in agreement from the very beginning. How can my agreement with them be faulty? Rather, it is your refusal to accept the agreement between these things that is faulty. No where does scripture say the earth is a ball. The Fathers do not teach it is a ball. Reality doesn't reflect earth is a ball. Science doesn't demonstrate earth to be a ball. Mathematics deny earth is a ball. My own eyeballs and experiments deny earth is a ball. Water denies earth is a ball. The horizon debunks any notion of the earth being a ball. Compasses, gyros, sextants, astrolabes, levels, lighthouses, planes, altimeters, and a host of other instruments do not even remotely suggest earth is a ball but rather, an extended plane. What, pray tell gives you any reason to believe earth is a ball? Except a notion long ago proven pagan and at odds with the Church!
The difference between Catholics and heretics is that Catholics accept that only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Of course, the Church does not teach the opposite of what Scripture says. Rather the Church gives principles to follow when interpreting Scripture and you ignore them. You then claim your faulty conclusions are a Church teaching.
There is nothing cryptic about looking at the point of Scripture passages instead of trying to deduce science by taking figures of speech literally. But if that is really too hard for you, then you should leave Scripture alone, not try to convince others of your errors.
Most heretics believe Scripture incorrectly. I'm not claiming scripture says what I say it says. The fact that the Fathers thought scripture says what it says, and the fact that scripture says what it says proves that it says what it says. And I claim it says what the Fathers say. And more amazingly, the words it uses backs that up! You cannot prove it says the opposite of what the Fathers taught, or supports another model than what it describes. You are the one that is tipping this whole thing over so scripture doesn't fit. Scripture, the Church, the Fathers, science, mathematics are all in agreement from the very beginning. How can my agreement with them be faulty?And you interpret Scripture incorrectly too. You are claiming you must be right because you agree with the Fathers but Pope Leo taught: "in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect."
I disagree with the first sentence above, but agree with the second.No one has ever attempted to actually prove the decrees were not infallible that I know of. They may say it, may think it or even blast it all over the Internet, but none have proven it. Not even the subsequent ambivalence of the hierarchy proves the statements weren't infallible. Why would someone even suggest it? As if to say the Church makes statements She doesn't really mean? Or to try to pretend the Church didn't take a side in the matter and made a mistake, but because it isn't fallible She can't be held liable? The whole idea borders on the absurd. It would be very difficult to prove, given that the entire foundation of truths supporting the cosmology of Moses, Enoch and the early Church Fathers show a geocentric flat earth, never a sphere, moving or not. Not to mention the other cosmology is Luciferian through and through. It follows perfectly with reason and precedence that the Church meant what She said and there's no reason to believe Her "say, declare, define" statements are not binding on the Faithful. What a can of worms that would open! (and actually has) Is it really so unbelievable that the Church meant what She said to the point of it being impossible to take it back? Should the pagan model affect us to the point that we're now questioning the Church's statements? Or saying that the Church's statements are not infallible in the hopes that the pagan model might be true? What is to be gained by such a strange supposition?
And you interpret Scripture incorrectly too. You are claiming you must be right because you agree with the Fathers but Pope Leo taught: "in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect."Yes, they (Fathers, scripture, Church, science, math) do agree, with each other, and I agree with them. You are spouting things of which you have no knowledge, but rather, merely an opposing opinion. I've told you I have many proofs, but rather than requesting the proofs, you proceed to knock what I already provided. When you're ready to learn, or when you've studied it for 10 years, you can check back in and we'll talk, ok?
And he also taught how to tell when they were speaking infallibly and when it was just their personal opinions. It is only Church teaching if the Fathers are unanimous on a matter they identify as belonging to faith. The Fathers are not unanimous and they do not identify flat earth as a matter of faith. Therefore it is their personal opinion, not something that proves you are right. When you claim that the quotes you have found prove that you are right you are opposing the teaching of Pope Leo and the subsequent popes who affirmed it.
You want to prove flat earth so badly that you are prepared to throw out papal teachings to do it. You are giving an authority to the Fathers that Church teaching says you should not give. You are interpreting Scripture in a way that Church teaching says you should not interpret. I am just saying what the Church teaches. If you think this "tips things over" your problem is with Church teaching not with me.
Scripture, the Fathers and the Church do not agree with you.
Yes, they (Fathers, scripture, Church, science, math) do agree, with each other, and I agree with them. You are spouting things of which you have no knowledge, but rather, merely an opposing opinion. I've told you I have many proofs, but rather than requesting the proofs, you proceed to knock what I already provided. When you're ready to learn, or when you've studied it for 10 years, you can check back in and we'll talk, ok?I have already seen the "proofs" that you have posted here. I have seen your lists of quotes that prove nothing. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of what constitutes proof, so there is no point in asking you for proof. The only proofs that have any validity are those coming from math and science. If I cared about what shape the earth is, I would look at those.
I have already seen the "proofs" that you have posted here. I have seen your lists of quotes that prove nothing. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of what constitutes proof, so there is no point in asking you for proof. The only proofs that have any validity are those coming from math and science. If I cared about what shape the earth is, I would look at those.
But I don't care about that. At least, not when I am faced with people who abuse Scripture and misrepresent Church teaching. I know enough about those subjects to be able to see that this is what you are doing.
I have already seen the "proofs" that you have posted here. I have seen your lists of quotes that prove nothing. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of what constitutes proof, so there is no point in asking you for proof. The only proofs that have any validity are those coming from math and science. If I cared about what shape the earth is, I would look at those.Actually, the proofs provided do prove that the Fathers, The Church, Tradition, science and math are all on the same page regarding flat earth. You simply reject everything because you proffer a pagan model you prefer. The fact that all truths even remotely fit, (and they actually totally complement each other and the Faith) and that the sphere doesn't jive with anything at all is reason enough to suspend your opinion until you've investigated. You've lobbed every unproven kind of "not infallible" bombs that disintegrate before doing one bit of damage to Tradition on the matter. Your model is defunct and untenable in every way. You have rejected without consideration that the Fathers spoke of the tabernacle as a type of the earth, that earth is covered with a dome, that it has pillars, four corners and cardinal directions are reality and not just relative. You also have no proof that the Church's statements on the matter are not infallible. Again, dozens of proofs from me, zero from you.
But I don't care about that. At least, not when I am faced with people who abuse Scripture and misrepresent Church teaching. I know enough about those subjects to be able to see that this is what you are doing.
, then you should leave Scripture alone, not try to convince others of your errors.You desperately need to take your own advice.
And interpret Scripture incorrectly too. You are claiming you must be right because you agree with the Fathers but Pope Leo taught: "in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect."You are giving an authority to Pope Leo's encyclical that it does not possess.
And he also taught how to tell when they were speaking infallibly and when it was just their personal opinions. It is only Church teaching if the Fathers are unanimous on a matter they identify as belonging to faith. The Fathers are not unanimous and they do not identify flat earth as a matter of faith. Therefore it is their personal opinion, not something that proves you are right. When you claim that the quotes you have found prove that you are right you are opposing the teaching of Pope Leo and the subsequent popes who affirmed it.
You want to prove flat earth so badly that you are prepared to throw out papal teachings to do it. You are giving an authority to the Fathers that Church teaching says you should not give. You are interpreting Scripture in a way that Church teaching says you should not interpret. I am just saying what the Church teaches. If you think this "tips things over" your problem is with Church teaching not with me.
Scripture, the Fathers and the Church do not agree with you.
I have already seen the "proofs" that you have posted here. I have seen your lists of quotes that prove nothing. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of what constitutes proof, so there is no point in asking you for proof. The only proofs that have any validity are those coming from math and science. If I cared about what shape the earth is, I would look at those.You don't even know enough about ANYTHING to be able to distinguish that evolution DOES NOT EXIST AND IS UNBIBLICAL.
But I don't care about that. At least, not when I am faced with people who abuse Scripture and misrepresent Church teaching. I know enough about those subjects to be able to see that this is what you are doing.
"it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity" so it is not necessary to treat it as if it were scientific information"
And if your insistence on flat earth makes you reluctant to accept that authority, ready to claim that multiple popes taught in error, then something is seriously evil about this belief. Our concerns about the post-Conciliar popes are based on their apparent contradiction of clear Church teaching, not due to them interfering with our pet theories about science. There was a never such a teaching about flat earth. For at least the last thousand years, virtually all Catholics believed the earth is a globe, although it was never taught as doctrine.
This was very interesting about NASA Virtual Reality fake footage. There's video in there where they're caught faking footage in "microgravity" environments --At one minute into this video, NASA are mocking us by revealing the method. This is significant because when you discover the method, yet refuse to acknowledge the lie, then you become complicit. You are no longer innocent in the cover up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Y6CvkEHvc
At one minute into this video, NASA are mocking us by revealing the method. This is significant because when you discover the method, yet refuse to acknowledge the lie, then you become complicit. You are no longer innocent in the cover up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI&t=1sToo funny! :laugh1:
Gotta love those videos! Can't resist posting 2 short minutes of what has become classic NASA fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI&t=1sClassic.
Gotta love those videos! Can't resist posting 2 short minutes of what has become classic NASA fun.
Even better are the guy floating across with the harness still on him and then the guy who thinks he's putting some object away but there's nothing there because their special effects malfunctioned. I thought the NASA conspiracy angle was a stretch ... but this video is very telling. Of course I know that the US Moon Landing was a total hoax. So I'm warming up to the NASA Freemasonic conspiracy angle. Every space agency sports Masonic symbols in their logos and insignia.I wish Mike, the narrator, could pronounce the word 'augmented. '
Many of the astronauts were Masons or sons of Masons (perhaps with secret membership themselves):
https://aplanetruth.info/space-travelers-and-freemasons/
recent picture (https://tinyurl.com/yala7gng)
St Basil and St Augustine were wrong in their opinion that the shape was unimportant.
Others Fathers believe the Bible.
I wish Mike, the narrator, could pronounce the word 'augmented. '
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFYiHGqshc
Hennesey commercial shows Piccard breaching into the waters above. They know.
an Arnold Schwarzenegger-type accent to narrate it, which is even funnier
:laugh1::cheers:
I was focused on the content, but of course you're right.
I too disagree that certain scientific questions are of NO importance. Certainly the Holy Office disagreed in condemning heliocentrism. I think that what these Fathers mean is that one can still be saved without knowing these things (vs. dogmas of faith and morals). St. Augustine studied scientific and philosophical questions all the time.I've no problems with the idea one can be saved despite ball earth belief.
Whole is LYING!!!!! Below is what actual Catholics and Church Fathers say about Scripture and the shape of things...
I agree that it is not, strictly speaking, gnosticism. It is not helpful to refer to flat earthers as gnostics..
.The word "gnosticism" normally refers to certain historical belief systems. One can see a description in Wikipedia:
Flat-earthers, in fact, display all the symptoms of gnosticism.
.
They refuse to observe the moon in its phases which everyone can see every month.
.
They repeatedly pander the same falsehoods over and over, even when they're shown to be falsehoods.
.
They adhere blindly to their false doctrine and ignore the facts presented to them.
.
There are words of Our Lord which apply directly to them.
.
"Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee."
.
The Church has never demanded that we ignore what we see with our eyes.
.
But nonetheless, flat-earthers refuse to look at the moon and recognize the truth of what they see.
.
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language): γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jєωιѕн milieus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_environment) in the first and second century AD. Based on their readings of the Torah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) and other Biblical writings,[specify (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] these systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the Divine spark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_spark) within the human body. This Divine spark could be liberated by gnosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis) of this Divine spark.There may be some points of similarity between Flatearthism and Gnosticism. For example, they both use knowledge improperly based on Scripture. Their actual beliefs, however, are very different.
The word "gnosticism" normally refers to certain historical belief systems. One can see a description in Wikipedia:.
There may be some points of similarity between Flatearthism and Gnosticism. For example, they both use knowledge improperly based on Scripture. Their actual beliefs, however, are very different.
Calling flatearthers "gnostics" is giving very little real information about them and is potentially confusing. It is basically just name-calling.
I strongly sympathize with being so frustrated with them that one wishes to call them names. They either refuse or are unable to see the truth. I've been upvoting a lot of your posts in which you explain things to them, but good explanations are not enough.
I recently came across a Fr. Faber quote which reminded me of this thread. It said "Kindness has converted more souls than zeal, eloquence, or learning." No matter how clearly we explain what is wrong with flatearthism, I doubt it will change anyone's mind if not accompanied by kindness.
I have pretty much exhausted my own ability to be kind, so it is time for me to think about pulling out of the discussion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFYiHGqshc.
Hennesey commercial shows Piccard breaching into the waters above. They know.
The word "gnosticism" normally refers to certain historical belief systems. One can see a description in Wikipedia:.
There may be some points of similarity between Flatearthism and Gnosticism. For example, they both use knowledge improperly based on Scripture. Their actual beliefs, however, are very different.
Calling flatearthers "gnostics" is giving very little real information about them and is potentially confusing. It is basically just name-calling.
.I think that the flatearthers are seriously wrong on several levels. I also think you are right that some of them want to provoke anger and frustration. I daresay they like to see themselves as a persecuted minority bravely proclaiming the truth and they need to create some persecutors to go with this narrative. If you want to help them out, I suppose you might as well.
So are you suggesting that what these flat-earthers are pandering is SOMEHOW NOT "potentially confusing?"
.
They keep saying the same stupid falsehoods over and over and over in response to simple questions.
.
The same stupid nonsense over and over and over.
.
The same stupid nonsense over and over and over.
.
They do it again and again and again.
.
They do it incessantly to the point where it has become evident that they enjoy trying to disturb the common sense of readers.
.
When someone who is asking reasonable questions gets frustrated with their stupid nonsense, they jump for joy.
.
These deviants actually take PLEASURE inducing frustration.
.
That borders on WICKED, actually. Do you prefer I accuse them of wickedness or gnosticism?
.
Because it's one or the other.
.
Wake up.
.
I've no problems with the idea one can be saved despite ball earth belief.Its not so much that believing earth to be a ball will send one to hell, but the consequent daughters of heliocentrism promote false beliefs that usher people into a pagan religions that is the problem. Evolution is one such daughter of heliocentrism, leading one to believe there is no God. The Big Bang is another. In the name of false science, the masses have turned away from God to thank Mother Earth and Nature for all corporal gifts and essentially worship another god. The damage of such false beliefs is inestimable. Making fun of it or dismissing the seriousness of the problem or failing to make the connection or even denying the connection is a sure sign one is infected with a very dangerous spiritual sickness: Condemned Heliocentrism.
I have problems with the opinion that the shape is unimportant.
I think that the flatearthers are seriously wrong on several levels. I also think you are right that some of them want to provoke anger and frustration. I daresay they like to see themselves as a persecuted minority bravely proclaiming the truth and they need to create some persecutors to go with this narrative. If you want to help them out, I suppose you might as well.It would seem Jaynek had whiskey in her coffee this morning.
Purely for linguistic reasons, however, I do not like to see a word with a perfectly good meaning like "gnosticism" be reduced to a mere insult. (I'm not saying that gnosticism is perfectly good; it is a rather evil heresy. But the word functions just the way a word ought to function.) If you really want to be a persecutor of flatearthers , there are other alternatives.
Have you considered adding the title "Official Flatearther Persector" to your profile? Or, if you must use insults, why not add a literary flavour to the discussion with this handy Shakespearean insult generator: http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/ (http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/)
Wouldn't it be fun to say, "Thou cullionly sheep-biting hedge-pig!"
or
"Thou currish plume-plucked flap-dragon!"
Why call people gnostics when the power and imagination of Shakespearean insults awaits you. Impress your friends. Strike terror into the hearts of your enemies. Borrow from the badass bard. Strut your stuff like you're from Stratford. Don't wait another moment! Shakespearean insults are just a click away.
If you really want to be a persecutor of flatearthers , there are other alternatives.
For what it's worth, I"m sure we all believe St Francis Xavier is in heaven... IMO, this thread is redundant.St Augustine is in Heaven, despite his ball earth belief.
They[Japanese] did not know that the world is round, they knew nothing of the course of the sun and stars, so that when they asked us and we explained to them these and other like things, such as the causes of comets, of the lightning and of rain, they listened to us most eagerly, and appeared delighted to hear us, regarding us with profound respect as extremely learned persons. This idea of our great knowledge opened the way to us for sowing the seed of religion in their minds. . . .
Since they didn't know it was round, they must have believed it was flat??
Life and Letters of St Francis Xavier
http://www.classzone.com/books/wh_05_shared/pdf/WHS05_019_546_PS.pdf
.
So to be a gnostic, all you really need to be doing is pretending that you have recourse to a secret or hidden knowledge, often times it being something that the general public all around you is ignorant of, or even opposed to.
to know, and reasonable discussion of said doctrines is not a forbidden activity.
For what it's worth, I"m sure we all believe St Francis Xavier is in heaven... IMO, this thread is redundant.Define round.
They[Japanese] did not know that the world is round, they knew nothing of the course of the sun and stars, so that when they asked us and we explained to them these and other like things, such as the causes of comets, of the lightning and of rain, they listened to us most eagerly, and appeared delighted to hear us, regarding us with profound respect as extremely learned persons. This idea of our great knowledge opened the way to us for sowing the seed of religion in their minds. . . .
Since they didn't know it was round, they must have believed it was flat??
Life and Letters of St Francis Xavier
http://www.classzone.com/books/wh_05_shared/pdf/WHS05_019_546_PS.pdf
So to be a gnostic, all you really need to be doing is pretending that you have recourse to a secret or hidden knowledge, often times it being something that the general public all around you is ignorant of, or even opposed to.
And yet aren't you opposed to advocates of FE in showing that the Church Fathers also believed in a flat earth? Were the Church Fathers gnostics as well? What about the ancient Hebrews who based a flat earth on Genesis? Were they gnostics, too?Neil Obstat acts as if the flat earth is some sort of hidden knowledge because he doesn't want to conform to the flat earth belief, even though he know that God created the flat earth.
It's true that most people are ignorant of FE, but that doesn't mean that FE is some sort of secret knowledge.
Keep in mind, too, that gnostics generally believe that that matter is evil. You'd have difficulty in finding a flat-earther who believes that matter is evil.
We believe that God created the earth, and as such it cannot be evil.
For what it's worth, I"m sure we all believe St Francis Xavier is in heaven... IMO, this thread is redundant.THAT IS SO EASY TO FLATTEN :fryingpan: YOU!
They[Japanese] did not know that the world is round, they knew nothing of the course of the sun and stars, so that when they asked us and we explained to them these and other like things, such as the causes of comets, of the lightning and of rain, they listened to us most eagerly, and appeared delighted to hear us, regarding us with profound respect as extremely learned persons. This idea of our great knowledge opened the way to us for sowing the seed of religion in their minds. . . .
Since they didn't know it was round, they must have believed it was flat??
Life and Letters of St Francis Xavier
http://www.classzone.com/books/wh_05_shared/pdf/WHS05_019_546_PS.pdf (http://www.classzone.com/books/wh_05_shared/pdf/WHS05_019_546_PS.pdf)
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
It would seem Jaynek had whiskey in her coffee this morning.Doesn't everybody do that on Epiphany? :cheers:
.
Flat-earthers practice gnosticism for the simple reason that they refuse to observe the reality available for all to see without any special apparatus or telescope, by simply observing the phases of the moon.
.
They won't dare look at the moon and they won't dare think about what they see because to them their sacred calf ideology is more precious than the truth. They have made flat-earthism into a false god, and they'll defend it to their death, apparently.
.
The martyrs refused to burn incense to false gods and thereby died as martyrs.
.
Would flat-earthers do the same for their flat-earthism?
.
Perhaps they would, and in so doing they would then believe they were dying for the truth. How ironic.
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
Defining "round" is redundant.Of course they did. But if shape of earth was irrelevant why bring it up?
It is irrelevant what notion the Japanese had of the earth or what St Francis told them. In order to find salvation the Japanese need to accept the Catholic faith that he preached.
.And what pray tell do The Phases of The Moon Prove Neil??
Flat-earthers, in fact, display all the symptoms of gnosticism.
.
They refuse to observe the moon in its phases which everyone can see every month.
.
They repeatedly pander the same falsehoods over and over, even when they're shown to be falsehoods.
.
They adhere blindly to their false doctrine and ignore the facts presented to them.
.
There are words of Our Lord which apply directly to them.
.
"Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee."
.
The Church has never demanded that we ignore what we see with our eyes.
.
But nonetheless, flat-earthers refuse to look at the moon and recognize the truth of what they see.
.
.
The Baptist Evangelist, Ken Hovind, singlehandedly converted thousands and thousands of dye hard Atheistic men, women and children to faith in Christ, by debunking The General Theory of Evolution, from a Biblical and albeit Protestant perspective (proving once again that God can bring good out of evil).
So, you have no idea how God will use the current revival in Geocentric-Flat Earth thinking.
..
.Quote from: WholeTradFoods on December 24, 2017, 01:20:32 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg585674/#msg585674)Quote.
The Baptist Evangelist, Ken Hovind, singlehandedly converted thousands and thousands of dye hard Atheistic men, women and children to faith in Christ, by debunking The General Theory of Evolution, from a Biblical and albeit Protestant perspective (proving once again that God can bring good out of evil).
So, you have no idea how God will use the current revival in Geocentric-Flat Earth thinking.
Does your hero, Kent Hovind, believe the earth is "flat?"
.
Flat-earthers practice gnosticism ...
I don't follow the argument about the moon phases either. Could you try to summarize it in a couple sentences? What does it prove? Perhaps leave out all the fluff and the pictures..
..
Quote from: Neil Obstat on January 06, 2018, 06:16:46 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg587967/#msg587967)Quote..
Flat-earthers practice gnosticism ...
No they don't. We've gone through this before.
The Church has the authority to decide that an opinion on science is contrary to Scripture and dangerous to the Faith. Evolution is a clear example of that. (Heliocentrism is less so since the condemnation was later lifted.) Lay people do not have the authority to make those sorts of claims. The Church has never taught anything like that about a globe earth..
You quote Saints who drew conclusions about physical science from Scripture long before Pope Leo taught not to. This does not cancel out his teaching so that we who know of it may ignore it. And it is ironic that you cite St. Augustine when you ignore the principle he taught:
The flat earthers are not insisting on a literal interpretation, but a literalistic one.
A literal interpretation is one that considers the information that the Sacred author intends to convey.
A literalistic one takes figurative language as if it were literal.
When a passage is about the Second Coming, for example, the literal interpretation concerns the Second Coming.
A literalistic one finds a figure of speech in the passage, treats it as literal and deduces that the earth is flat, even though it is obvious that the author had no intention to teach about this.
.God created the flat earth. God was not in error when He created the flat earth.
No they don't. We've gone through this before.
.
It would be great if you could for example refute all the numerous problems with flat-earthism, some of which I have mentioned in the previous post above. If you think the questions have been settled then you are required to post links to where that happened. Good luck.
.
The gnosticism of flat-earthism is squarely founded on their reliance on esoteric platitudes such as "the moon is translucent" or "the moon produces its own light" and so on. They have no explanation for how these things can be what they say they are, and cannot answer simple questions with coherent and intelligible responses, but instead they huddle together in their exile and imagine bad intentions of their opponents. That is what gnosticism is all about. Secret societies practice gnosticism. That doesn't mean they all agree with each other. It only means they think they are the only ones who know what's really going on because they have secret knowledge that others don't have access to.
.
Flat-earthers can't come up with their own answers but rely on someone else to answer for them, most curiously, someone who is no longer living so they can't post here on CI, such as "Enoch" or "Cosmas."
.
It doesn't matter who you want to conjure up, they can't answer simple questions such as the many questions related to the phases of the moon. Which see.
.
.All 100% false.
There are many things about the phases of the moon that demonstrate how the earth's surface is spheroidal.
.
For example:
-- Everywhere on the earth where the moon is visible, everyone always sees the same phase at the same time.
There is no exception to this fact.
But if the earth were "flat," viewers separated by a few thousand miles would always see a DIFFERENT phase.
That NEVER happens. Therefore, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
-- At the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon, at that very hour the moon makes a right triangle with the sun and earth.
With the moon at the 90 degree corner, we can measure the angle of the earth's corner, which turns out to be 89.6 degrees.
Since the sum of the three interior angles of any triangle is 180 degrees, that leaves 0.4 degrees for the sun's corner.
This is a very thin and long triangle, with the earth and moon at one end and the sun at the other end.
The sun is placed over 300 times further from earth than the moon is from the earth.
This is impossible on a "flat" earth model, therefore the "flat" earth model is shown to be impossible.
.
-- When we look up at the moon from waxing crescent to waning crescent (all except new moon) we see the following:
The moon's illuminated side always faces the sun. Therefore we can see it's the sun that makes the moon light up.
Flat-earthers are all in disagreement about this so they have all kinds of silly explanations, like:
-- The moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it
The moon does not shine by the sun's light but is illuminated from inside (somehow but we don't know how).
The moon is a flat disk not a globe and the phases we see have nothing to do with the sun (?).
Since none of their silly claims ever amount to a "hill of beans" consequently flat-earthism is relegated to urban legend.
.
-- The full moon at midnight is always directly overhead, from any point of view on earth. Therefore:
We can easily imagine where the sun is located in order to make the moon look this way.
With the moon overhead at "high noon" position in the sky, the sun must be under our feet on the other side of the earth.
The moon, earth and sun must be in a straight line in space for us to see the moon "full" as we do in a full moon.
-- But flat-earthers claim the sun is circling above the "flat" earth and is therefore behind our back, to the north.
If the sun were where flat-earthers say it is, we ought to see a shadow at the bottom of the moon, not a full moon.
Since we never see a shadow at the bottom of the moon during full moon, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
Do you need more examples?
.
All 100% false..
And the moon is never "under our feet."
You are profoundly dumb and will buy anything your helio devils tell you.
.Note how strongly St. Augustine wrote when he addressed this issue in On Christian Doctrine:
You scored a bullseye here, Jaynek.
.
A literalistic person practices literalism while literalistcally looking for a literalist meaning in everything.
.
But the Church never has and never will support literalism.
.
Proper understanding of Scripture does not seek to impute literalism into everything in the Bible.
.
CHAP. 5.--IT IS A WRETCHED SLAVERY WHICH TAKES THE FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN A LITERAL SENSE.
9.But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."(2) For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification... Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.
God created the flat earth. God was not in error when He created the flat earth.
Agreed. The globers try to prove the pagan NASA globe earth as best they can. But they cannot change what God has created.
.Whatever you say, Spamstat.
You're wrong, again, as usual.
You have nothing intelligent to say, as usual.
You give flat-earthism a black eye with your stupidity and insolence.
.
I doubt very much that you are Catholic and must be a subversive troll here to make Catholics look bad.
.
Idiot.
.
Note how strongly St. Augustine wrote when he addressed this issue in On Christian Doctrine:Yeah, that whole "Eat my flesh and drink my blood thing is really soul killing slavery. :facepalm:
– Book III, Ch. 5
Yeah, that whole "Eat my flesh and drink my blood thing is really soul killing slavery. :facepalm:No Catholic should say that "eat my flesh and drink my blood" is an example of a figurative expression. The Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Christ. Non-Catholics often claim it is a figure of speech but they are wrong. St. Augustine's condemnation of taking figurative expressions literally refers genuine figures of speech, not the false claims of non-Catholics.
Yeah, that whole "Eat my flesh and drink my blood thing is really soul killing slavery. :facepalm:
Good example above, for those who believe that we cannot take Scripture literally.
No Catholic should say that "eat my flesh and drink my blood" is an example of a figurative expression. The Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Christ. Non-Catholics often claim it is a figure of speech but they are wrong. St. Augustine's condemnation of taking figurative expressions literally refers genuine figures of speech, not the false claims of non-Catholics.No kidding, Captain Obvious.
We know that "eat my Flesh and drink my Blood" is literal because the Church teaches us that. We know descriptions of the physical universe are figurative because the Church teaches us that.*THIS POST HAS BEEN MARKED AS SPAM*
"To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time," Providentissimus Deus
*THIS POST HAS BEEN MARKED AS SPAM*
I've lost count of how many times that quote has been posted on FE threads.If that is your standard for spam, then Matthew might as well shut down this sub-forum. Nobody says anything new here. It is the same argument over and over again.
If that is your standard for spam, then Matthew might as well shut down this sub-forum. Nobody says anything new here. It is the same argument over and over again.We are easily showing that people who profess themselves to be globe earthers have absolutely no evidence for their Freemason NASA worldview.
.From Neil's posts I can see how the obsession with mathematics made the Ancient Greeks go insane and start thinking the earth was round. Once you go far enough down that road, common sense goes bye bye.
There are many things about the phases of the moon that demonstrate how the earth's surface is spheroidal.
.
For example:
-- Everywhere on the earth where the moon is visible, everyone always sees the same phase at the same time.
There is no exception to this fact.
But if the earth were "flat," viewers separated by a few thousand miles would always see a DIFFERENT phase.
That NEVER happens. Therefore, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
-- At the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon, at that very hour the moon makes a right triangle with the sun and earth.
With the moon at the 90 degree corner, we can measure the angle of the earth's corner, which turns out to be 89.6 degrees.
Since the sum of the three interior angles of any triangle is 180 degrees, that leaves 0.4 degrees for the sun's corner.
This is a very thin and long triangle, with the earth and moon at one end and the sun at the other end.
The sun is placed over 300 times further from earth than the moon is from the earth.
This is impossible on a "flat" earth model, therefore the "flat" earth model is shown to be impossible.
.
-- When we look up at the moon from waxing crescent to waning crescent (all except new moon) we see the following:
The moon's illuminated side always faces the sun. Therefore we can see it's the sun that makes the moon light up.
Flat-earthers are all in disagreement about this so they have all kinds of silly explanations, like:
-- The moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it
The moon does not shine by the sun's light but is illuminated from inside (somehow but we don't know how).
The moon is a flat disk not a globe and the phases we see have nothing to do with the sun (?).
Since none of their silly claims ever amount to a "hill of beans" consequently flat-earthism is relegated to urban legend.
.
-- The full moon at midnight is always directly overhead, from any point of view on earth. Therefore:
We can easily imagine where the sun is located in order to make the moon look this way.
With the moon overhead at "high noon" position in the sky, the sun must be under our feet on the other side of the earth.
The moon, earth and sun must be in a straight line in space for us to see the moon "full" as we do in a full moon.
-- But flat-earthers claim the sun is circling above the "flat" earth and is therefore behind our back, to the north.
If the sun were where flat-earthers say it is, we ought to see a shadow at the bottom of the moon, not a full moon.
Since we never see a shadow at the bottom of the moon during full moon, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
Do you need more examples?
.
.The phases of the moon work perfectly on the flat earth and you haven't proven otherwise. This entire argument is worthless. Earth is not a sphere because the land mass doesn't curve and water cannot encompass a globe. Until you address these, you're argument amounts to nothing because the moon is a separate body and has no bearing on the flatness of earth.
It's quite revealing that when Ladislaus asked me a straight question (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg591062/#msg591062) (subtly ignoring previous posts that answered it) and I provided a direct answer to his question, he then disappeared. He did not respond to my answer, making me think that since his query was squarely addressed he abandoned that feigned attack and chose to re-group so as to look elsewhere.
.
But the other member, above, while managing to reply to it, still offered nothing of substance but instead chose to reply with a typically cheap ad-hominem, instead of something constructive to the discussion at hand.
.
.
There are many things about the phases of the moon that demonstrate how the earth's surface is spheroidal.
.
For example:
-- Everywhere on the earth where the moon is visible, everyone always sees the same phase at the same time.
There is no exception to this fact.
But if the earth were "flat," viewers separated by a few thousand miles would always see a DIFFERENT phase.
That NEVER happens. Therefore, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
-- At the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon, at that very hour the moon makes a right triangle with the sun and earth.
With the moon at the 90 degree corner, we can measure the angle of the earth's corner, which turns out to be 89.6 degrees.
Since the sum of the three interior angles of any triangle is 180 degrees, that leaves 0.4 degrees for the sun's corner.
This is a very thin and long triangle, with the earth and moon at one end and the sun at the other end.
The sun is placed over 300 times further from earth than the moon is from the earth.
This is impossible on a "flat" earth model, therefore the "flat" earth model is shown to be impossible.
.
-- When we look up at the moon from waxing crescent to waning crescent (all except new moon) we see the following:
The moon's illuminated side always faces the sun. Therefore we can see it's the sun that makes the moon light up.
Flat-earthers are all in disagreement about this so they have all kinds of silly explanations, like:
-- The moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it
-- The moon does not shine by the sun's light but is illuminated from inside (somehow but we don't know how)
-- The moon is a flat disk not a globe and the phases we see have nothing to do with the sun (?)
.
Since none of their silly claims ever amount to a "hill of beans" consequently, flat-earthism is relegated to urban legend.
.
-- The full moon at midnight is always directly overhead, from any point of view on earth. Therefore:
We can easily imagine where the sun is located in order to make the moon look this way.
With the moon overhead at "high noon" position in the sky, the sun must be under our feet on the other side of the earth.
The moon, earth and sun must be in a straight line in space for us to see the moon "full" as we do in a full moon.
-- But flat-earthers claim the sun is circling above the "flat" earth and is therefore behind our back, to the north.
If the sun were where flat-earthers say it is, we ought to see a shadow at the bottom of the moon, not a full moon.
Since we never see a shadow at the bottom of the moon during full moon, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
Do you need more examples?
.
The phases of the moon work perfectly on the flat earth and you haven't proven otherwise. This entire argument is worthless..
.Nothing about the phases of the moon suggest the earth is a sphere, no matter how many times you say it. Saying it doesn't prove anything. Quoting globalists doesn't prove anything either. Saying that it is necessary to see a different phase on different sides of the earth is silly and is a claim unfounded because you have not proven that phases are affected by that criteria to the exclusion of flat earth. You only claim it. Calling me stupid won't affect anything either because you still haven't proven your case.
Provide some image or model of your "flat" earth that depicts the way we see phases of the moon.
Or are you still hanging on to the falsehood that you don't need any "model?"
.
Trying to change the subject isn't going to work.
.
Take the first item, for starters, if you can handle it:
There are many things about the phases of the moon that demonstrate how the earth's surface is spheroidal.
.
For example:
-- Everywhere on the earth where the moon is visible, everyone always sees the same phase at the same time.
There is no exception to this fact.
But if the earth were "flat," viewers separated by a few thousand miles would always see a DIFFERENT phase.
That NEVER happens. Therefore, the earth cannot be "flat."
.
Provide some image or model of your "flat" earth that depicts the way we see phases of the moon.
Or are you still hanging on to the falsehood that you don't need any "model?"
.
Trying to change the subject isn't going to work.
.
Take the first item, for starters, if you can handle it:
There are many things about the phases of the moon that demonstrate how the earth's surface is spheroidal.
.
For example:
-- Everywhere on the earth where the moon is visible, everyone always sees the same phase at the same time.
There is no exception to this fact.
But if the earth were "flat," viewers separated by a few thousand miles would always see a DIFFERENT phase.
That NEVER happens. Therefore, the earth cannot be "flat."
What you are describing only says something about the distances between the two observers compared with the distance between the observers and the moon, not about the shape of the earth between them. For once, I agree with the broken clocks: the shape of the earth has no influence on the phases of the moon we see. A simple picture would demonstrate this but I can't be bothered anymore with this Flatulent Earth nonsense. There's ample proof that the earth is not flat, but there's also ample fools who don't care about proof.What you are describing says nothing at all. In fact, the shape of the earth is reality. And as such, it matters. Calling it flatulent earth doesn't change anything, but proves you are unwilling to do the work to prove your case.
I just happened to see this post and couldn't resist :)
Have fun!
.
Quote from: Samuel on April 11, 2018, 01:52:24 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg603750/#msg603750)QuoteWhat you are describing only says something about the distances between the two observers compared with the distance between the observers and the moon, not about the shape of the earth between them. For once, I agree with the broken clocks: the shape of the earth has no influence on the phases of the moon we see. A simple picture would demonstrate this but I can't be bothered anymore with this Flatulent Earth nonsense. There's ample proof that the earth is not flat, but there's also ample fools who don't care about proof.
I just happened to see this post and couldn't resist (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Have fun!
What you are describing says nothing at all. In fact, the shape of the earth is reality. And as such, it matters. Calling it flatulent earth doesn't change anything, but proves you are unwilling to do the work to prove your case.
What you are describing says nothing at all. In fact, the shape of the earth is reality. And as such, it matters. Calling it flatulent earth doesn't change anything, but proves you are unwilling to do the work to prove your case.You have no proof for a single thing you said. True science proves what Scripture has described all along and what the Fathers of the Church have said. Earth is flat. Everything you claim about the globe is provided by NASA, the globalist elite, and pagan science.
.
The shape of the earth is reality, true, and that reality is demonstrably spheroid.
Flatulent earth evokes the odor of heresy, by the way.
Stinky lies, putrid fallacy, pernicious falsehood.
Flat-earthism is all that and more. It leaves you....... well,,,,,,, flat. ::)
Being a flat-earther must be like living face-down flat in a sewer, but I wouldn't know about that.
.
If it "matters" then you ought to get a builder's level and someone who knows how to use it (you probably can't) and climb to a high mountaintop like I have and see for yourself.
.
Mount Whitney is only a one-day hike. Lots of fun.
Go enjoy yourself, and come back cured of your illness.
.
You have no proof for a single thing you said. True science proves what Scripture has described all along and what the Fathers of the Church have said. Earth is flat. Everything you claim about the globe is provided by NASA, the globalist elite, and pagan science..
Take a hike yourself.