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

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong  (Read 29924 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2017, 06:24:27 PM »
Provided above are only a few quotes of the Fathers, saints and scripture.  We could be here all day with the proof available.  In the meantime, do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied.  There is a lot to know about flat earth.  

Also notice  I use scripture and Catholic saints/fathers for proof.  Sungenis ONLY uses pagans and anti-Catholics to try to prove his fake ball case.  I wonder which one will hold up when the time comes?

Any honest traditional Catholic that reads Sungenis' debunking of flat earth and then reads my response to Sungenis will see that he is firmly rooted in the modern world and atheistic science and scientists.  My sources remain totally Catholic, or at least, not contrary to Catholic teaching. 

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2017, 06:24:46 PM »

Pardon my ignorance but, earth being the centre of the circle, does the circuмference, and hence the sun, pass below the flat stationary plain which is the earth?

You say the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours. Why is it then that the sun disappears from sight?

This is due to the law of perspective.
From where you stand on the flat plane of earth, from your perspective, all objects reach what is called "the vanishing point" where they converge and disappear from view (from your perspective) but not in reality.
It's like looking down the highway at the painted lines on the road - they converge and disappear from view, but you know if you drove a few miles down the road, the lines are still there, still in a straight line.
It's the same with the sun. It doesn't literally go "down" it only disappears from your point of view from your perspective, and if you had a super-fast vehicle that could drive you 1,000 miles down the road in a few moments, the sun would still be "up."
Do you see?


Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2017, 07:49:17 PM »
More Catholic teaching on flat earth.

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 the 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 center; 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 Poe 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 and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.

It is impossible that Jerusalem is the center of the earth if earth is a ball.

From St. Jerome to Pope Urban is 1000 years, which this teaching being held for so long a time, may constitute revelation.  

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2017, 09:39:27 PM »
Provided above are only a few quotes of the Fathers, saints and scripture.  We could be here all day with the proof available.  In the meantime, do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied.  There is a lot to know about flat earth.  

Also notice  I use scripture and Catholic saints/fathers for proof.  Sungenis ONLY uses pagans and anti-Catholics to try to prove his fake ball case.  I wonder which one will hold up when the time comes?

Any honest traditional Catholic that reads Sungenis' debunking of flat earth and then reads my response to Sungenis will see that he is firmly rooted in the modern world and atheistic science and scientists.  My sources remain totally Catholic, or at least, not contrary to Catholic teaching.
A couple of things and then I'm going to stop reading for the night.  Early day tomorrow.  Firstly, "do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied"?  I'm not.  I am proposing arguments and asking how you would respond to them.  The semantic argument for differing senses of words in other languages, is a topic that I have studied.  I have a bachelors degree in Applied Linguistics.  So this is a subject that I've studied and one that I understand.  
And as a Catholic, I am totally open to changing my mind on the issue if you could convince me that the Church fathers had a consensus or even a near-consensus on the issue.  So on to the proof.  I didn't read through all of your examples but I did take a look at the first two, and do some research to attempt to determine if they were solid.  The first example, Severian of Gabala, was not a Church Father.  He is presented because he is supposed to have been of one mind with St. Chrysostom.  However, not only is Severian not a Church father, but he also helped to condemn and exile St. Chrysostom, against the desire of Pope Innocent, who tried and failed to intercede on his behalf.  Then I researched the quote from St. Jerome, but I was only able to find it in a discussion forum for flat earth trads, so I can't even verify the authenticity of the quote.  I will research the others you provided when I have some time tomorrow, but needless to say, I remain unconvinced of your argument.  All the same, thank you for providing me with the quotes.

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2017, 09:48:13 PM »
A couple of things and then I'm going to stop reading for the night.  Early day tomorrow.  Firstly, "do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied"?  I'm not.  I am proposing arguments and asking how you would respond to them.  The semantic argument for differing senses of words in other languages, is a topic that I have studied.  I have a bachelors degree in Applied Linguistics.  So this is a subject that I've studied and one that I understand.  
And as a Catholic, I am totally open to changing my mind on the issue if you could convince me that the Church fathers had a consensus or even a near-consensus on the issue.  So on to the proof.  I didn't read through all of your examples but I did take a look at the first two, and do some research to attempt to determine if they were solid.  The first example, Severian of Gabala, was not a Church Father.  He is presented because he is supposed to have been of one mind with St. Chrysostom.  However, not only is Severian not a Church father, but he also helped to condemn and exile St. Chrysostom, against the desire of Pope Innocent, who tried and failed to intercede on his behalf.  Then I researched the quote from St. Jerome, but I was only able to find it in a discussion forum for flat earth trads, so I can't even verify the authenticity of the quote.  I will research the others you provided when I have some time tomorrow, but needless to say, I remain unconvinced of your argument.  All the same, thank you for providing me with the quotes.
The quote from St. Jerome was provided by Fr. Pfeiffer in his Power Point against the flat earth.   Didn't mean to jump on you, so if I sounded harsh, forgive me.  That you are unconvinced is no problem.  Failing to continue looking into it would be the problem.  Enjoy your studies. Have a wonderful evening.