What is our faith based on?

We should believe everything that the Church professes for our belief.

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.

The horizontal horizon is infallible.

Anyone can check my profile and see that this is not true.
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.

Thanks for displaying your dim intellect, yet again.
I'm referring to your sudden,  1 month-long presence on the flat earth subforum, which you began participating in so you could report back at SD.
The number of posts you've made at CI is always visible, every time you post.
Only a total idiot like you would think I don't know when you joined CI.

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.  

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.

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. 

As you have described, St. Jerome, Origen, St. Augustine, and others believed that they could explain what the firmament meant. Indeed, the Galileo pagan assault has affected Catholics today, in that they deny the veracity of scripture. 

By the way, I joined to defend the truth against fools like you who are pushing the anti-Catholic un-Biblical lie of heliocentrism. And an utterly false notion of the Church's teachings on how to read Scripture. 

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 does not stand alone, according to the Council of Trent:

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


Since the Church teaches that Scripture does not intend to teach about science, we may not interpret Scripture as if it teaches about science.

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.

No, not incorrectly. Only incorrectly from a modernist POV.

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.