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.

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.

As an aside, I cannot but agree with question 7. I am a Catholic. Obviously scripture is not intended to teach science since it has allegorical meanings also. 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,

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.

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.

How do you explain the fact that we can see objects beyond the horizon?

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs

This is science. Accept it.

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.

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.

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.

This is the part where you get destroyed.

My dear Jaynek. Re-read your own post carefully and ponder on the following; The model which you propose, a globe of 25000 miles is debunked by science. You refuse to accept this.

What we see is a flat earth. There is NO conflict with what scripture teaches us. This is why I insist on BOTH science and faith.

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.

You are therefore snookered.

"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.

And Jesus isn't God so that He can make Himself seen?  In either case, there would have to be something supernatural for all eyes to see Him.  Even on flat earth, how would someone a thousand miles away see Him unless He grew to gigantic proportions?

Could you quote that particular passage?

<sup>Genesis 1

6</sup> 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.

Genesis 1:20
God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

Psalm 18:2
The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands.


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.  Modern science completely ignores the firmament and declares its own teaching that above us is space. 

If there is a firmament and the earth is a globe, how does a sun 93,000,000 miles away manage to fit under the firmament? 
If modern science's globe is correct, where is the water above the dome?  The never speak of it because their model denies it.   

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.