• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Geocentric or Heliocentric (what shape is the earth) ?

Phil G

Grafted In
Sep 11, 2012
1,780
836
✟70,390.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am truly sorry if I have caused offence to you or to any other members & I retract my statements for calling people liars and hope you can all forgive me.

I think it's for the best if I stay out of threads like this as I am so passionate about my beliefs that I do tend to get carried away with them & I know it''s wrong of me.

Your all such wonderful people on this forum, I came to this forum to find out more about the Bible & Jesus so this is exactly what I'm going to do from here on.

You take care now & God bless you & keep you safe.

:praying: My prayers are with you all.

PS I've un-ignored @prodromos so sorry .........:(
Thank you @Apple Sky, I’m so grateful for this heartfelt post. And as far as I’m concerned you’re forgiven. I’ve enjoyed our lighthearted banter & it seems we share some music tastes too.

I want to wish you every blessing in our Lord, and may He guide you to more understanding of Him & His word. :praying:
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,548
13,949
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,393,743.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I resent this very much & have put you on ignore from here on. :mad:
The best response would have been "NO", which would then make it clear who is NOT your father and be a humble admission that you are a work in progress. I am personally a long way from taking after my Father in heaven, but that is the path I am on and my goal is to become like Him.
 
Upvote 0

Apple Sky

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2024
6,815
899
South Wales
✟230,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I’ve enjoyed our lighthearted banter & it seems we share some music tastes too.

Yes me too that was fun & it does seem as though we share some music tastes, I luv music & I do play the classical gutiar & write songs (not sure about all the spelling though ^_^)

 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil G
Upvote 0

Phil G

Grafted In
Sep 11, 2012
1,780
836
✟70,390.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes me too that was fun & it does seem as though we share some music tastes, I luv music & I do play the classical gutiar & write songs
You're obviously musically gifted and I would encourage you to use this gift to worship the Lord. I take great comfort from thinking of David in the Bible as he worshiped the Lord by composing songs and playing music. His music helped him in both good times and bad. It's a way to draw closer to God and to seek Him at all times. And knowing that Jesus would have sung some of David's songs connects me to Him in a very real way.

Keep it up, it's a wonderful gift from God!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Simonides

Active Member
Nov 25, 2024
205
112
PNW
✟10,314.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
1733225096058.jpeg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Free state of Florida
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
May 15, 2017
27,182
7,890
Tampa
✟933,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

Simonides

Active Member
Nov 25, 2024
205
112
PNW
✟10,314.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
The images are clearly from different directions and sizes.
The images are exactly the same size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,548
13,949
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,393,743.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The images are exactly the same size.
But the 2015 one is from much further out than the 2012 image. If you take a photo of a ball from up close you will still get a circle, but you will see a lot less of the face of the ball than you will if you take a photo from a long way away and zoom in.
If you want to post two photos for comparison, you need to include all the details such as the camera lens focal length, the distance from the object, whether the image is cropped, etc. Your meme doesn't provide any of that.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: tampasteve
Upvote 0

Simonides

Active Member
Nov 25, 2024
205
112
PNW
✟10,314.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
But the 2015 one is from much further out than the 2012 image. If you take a photo of a ball from up close you will still get a circle, but you will see a lot less of the face of the ball than you will if you take a photo from a long way away and zoom in.
If you want to post two photos for comparison, you need to include all the details such as the camera lens focal length, the distance from the object, whether the image is cropped, etc. Your meme doesn't provide any of that.
These are NASA images. From NASA, you know, the space agency? Never mind.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,548
13,949
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,393,743.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Free state of Florida
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
May 15, 2017
27,182
7,890
Tampa
✟933,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
These are NASA images. From NASA, you know, the space agency? Never mind.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Except they clearly are not the same size. You can measure them yourself simply, just hold a straight line from one to the other. In spite of what that website is claiming they are not the same image. They are also clearly not from the same angle. The pictures are nonsense like pretty much any other flat Earth "evidence".

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,548
13,949
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,393,743.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The 2012 Blue Marble is a composite image made up of images from 6 orbits over an eight hour period by the polar satellite SUOMI NPP which orbits at a height of 824km. The resulting composite image is equivalent to taking a single photo from 2,100km from the Earth. This gives a viewing angle to the edge of the Earth of approximately 1.44 radians, so the most you can see of the Earth's surface is 9174km.

The 2015 Blue Marble image is a single photo taken by the DSCOVR satellite which sits 1,500,000km from Earth at the L1 Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun. From that vantage you can see approximately double, almost 20,000km
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
18
Bible Belt
✟44,229.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And believe it or not, many Evangelical Bible scholars would say "yes", of course they believed it to be solid, however, the Bible is not a science textbook. Much like the Catholic Church that persicuted Galileo, it shouldn't be understood as such.
Personally, I am not a fan of the belief that Galileo was "persecuted," as he was convicted of a “strong suspicion of heresy,” a lesser charge than actual heresy. UCLA Research Prof. Henry Kelly said: “In sum, the 1616 event was not the beginning of a 17-year-long trial, as is often said, but a non-trial... [...] Galileo’s actual trial lasted for only a fraction of a single day, with no fanfare at all.” It would be a stretch to say he was persecuted, as Galileo was never given the condemnation that is socially implied upon him. See my thread 'Catholicism: Is Geocentrism 'de fide' (an Obligatory Article of Faith)? Yes and No.' for more on the topic.

Regarding the shape of the earth, the Church has never officially taught that the earth is flat. Here are a few points:

1. Pope Leo XIII used the French word for globe in his Sep. 8, 1899 encyclical, Depuis Le Jour (#1): “... [God chose] Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe [French: confins du globe], and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism.”

2. This quote from St. Augustine proves not that he was opposed to the notion of whether the Earth is spherical, but rather that he was opposed to the notion that, even if the Earth could be proven to be spherical, it therefore logically follows that there must be either landmass or men on the opposite side of the Earth. He thus indirectly grants that it is possible the Earth is spherical: “...although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled" (St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVI, Chap. 9).

3. Two quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas deal with the sphericity of the Earth, both from his Summa Theologiae. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I-I, Q. 1, A. 1: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.”

In this quote he refers to an astronomer who proves the earth to be round by the shapes of eclipses, or a physicist by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center (evidently referring to gravity): St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I-II, Q. 54, A. 2: The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.”

4. Pope Alexander VI in HIS May 4, 1493 Papal Bull Inter Caetera specifically refers to the Arctic North Pole and the Antarctic South Pole twice: "And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with the benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. [...] Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication late sententie to be incurred ipso facto, should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare, without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.”

5. The Douay Rheims (the official Bible of the Church) refers to 'the globe of the earth,' such as Isaias (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.”

6. In the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Catherine Laboure for the Miraculous Medal, Our Lady was standing on a globe and was holding a globe which she said represents the world and especially France: "The first of these apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Miraculous Medal). In fact, the original design for the Miraculous Medal was called 'Our Lady of the Globe.' Fr. Joseph Dirvin relays this point: “Suddenly, Catherine’s heart leaped. She had heard it—that rustling, that faint swish of silk she could never forget, the sound of Our Lady’s gown as she walked! There it was again—and there was the Queen of Heaven, there in the sanctuary, standing upon a globe. She shone as the morning rising, a radiant vision, “in all her perfect beauty,” as Catherine said later.” [...] “The Virgin held in her hands a golden ball which she seemed to offer to God, for her eyes were raised heavenward. Suddenly, her hands were resplendent with rings set with precious stones that glittered and flashed in a brilliant cascade of light. So bright was the flood of glory cast upon the globe below that Catherine could no longer see Our Lady’s feet. Mary lowered her eyes and looked full at Sister Laboure. Her lips did not move, but Catherine heard a voice. ‘The ball which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.’ These words stirred the heart of the Sister with fresh transports of joy, and the dazzling rays seemed to her to increase to blinding brilliance. ‘These rays symbolize the graces I shed upon those who ask for them. The gems from which rays do not fall are the graces for which souls forget to ask.’ At this moment, Catherine was so lost in delight that she scarcely knew where she was, whether she lived or died. The golden ball vanished from Mary’s hands; her arms swept wide in a gesture of motherly compassion, while from her jeweled fingers the rays of light streamed upon the white globe at her feet. An oval frame formed around the Blessed Virgin, and written within it in letters of gold Catherine read the words: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee" (Saint Catherine Labouré of the Miraculous Medal, 1958, Ch. VII).

7. The following two quotes are from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, referring to St. Virgilius of Salzburg (canonized in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX), who was initially reprimanded but then cleared for believing that there are people (Antipodes) on the other side of the earth, i.e., “upside down”: “Later on, St. Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the earth, which was "contrary to the Scriptures". Pope Zachary's decision in this case was that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity" (Jaffe, "Biblioth. rerum germ.", III, 191). Unfortunately we no longer possess the treatise in which Vergilius expounded his doctrine. Two things, however, are certain: first, that there was involved the problem of original sin and the universality of redemption; secondly, that Vergilius succeeded in freeing himself from the charge of teaching a doctrine contrary to Scripture. It is likely that Boniface misunderstood him, taking it for granted, perhaps, that if there are antipodes, the "other race of men" are not descendants of Adam and were not redeemed by Christ. Vergilius, no doubt, had little difficulty in showing that his doctrine did not involve consequences of that kind” (Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Vergilius of Salzburg, 1912).

The second: “From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (1 May, 748), addressed to St. Boniface, we learn that the great Apostle of Germany had invoked the papal censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians named Vergilius, generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman, and later Archbishop of Salzburg. Among other alleged misdeeds and errors was numbered that of holding "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon". In reply, the Pope directs St. Boniface to convoke a council and, "if it be made clear" that Vergilius adheres to this "perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord and to his own soul", to "expel him from the Church, deprived of his priestly dignity". This is the only information that we possess regarding an incident which is made to figure largely in the imaginary warfare between theology and science. That Vergilius was ever really tried, condemned, or forced to retract, is an assumption without any foundation in history. On the contrary, if he was in fact the future Archbishop of Salzburg, it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by "other men" he did not understand a race of human beings not descended from Adam and redeemed by the Lord; for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope to be ‘perverse’ and ‘contrary to the Lord'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Antipodes, 1912).

8. Sacrobosco's De sphaera mundi, in English, being 'On the Sphere of the World,' was the most influential astronomy textbook of the 13th century and required reading by students in all Western European universities, and described the world as a sphere: “Though principally about the universe, De sphaera contains a clear description of the Earth as a sphere which agrees with widespread opinion in Europe during the higher Middle Ages, in contrast to statements of some 19th- and 20th-century historians that medieval scholars thought the Earth was flat. (Wikipedia, De sphaera mundi, Spherical Earth).

9. “The monk Bede (c. 672–735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus, The Reckoning of Time, that the Earth was round ('not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembl[ing] more a ball'), explaining the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of the Earth. Ælfric of Eynsham paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying 'Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land'” (Wikipedia, Flat Earth, Early Middle Ages).
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,149
3,085
Hartford, Connecticut
✟350,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Personally, I am not a fan of the belief that Galileo was "persecuted," as he was convicted of a “strong suspicion of heresy,” a lesser charge than actual heresy. UCLA Research Prof. Henry Kelly said: “In sum, the 1616 event was not the beginning of a 17-year-long trial, as is often said, but a non-trial... [...] Galileo’s actual trial lasted for only a fraction of a single day, with no fanfare at all.” It would be a stretch to say he was persecuted, as Galileo was never given the condemnation that is socially implied upon him. See my thread 'Catholicism: Is Geocentrism 'de fide' (an Obligatory Article of Faith)? Yes and No.' for more on the topic.
It's fine.

Regarding the shape of the earth, the Church has never officially taught that the earth is flat. Here are a few points:

1. Pope Leo XIII used the French word for globe in his Sep. 8, 1899 encyclical, Depuis Le Jour (#1): “... [God chose] Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe [French: confins du globe], and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism.”

2. This quote from St. Augustine proves not that he was opposed to the notion of whether the Earth is spherical, but rather that he was opposed to the notion that, even if the Earth could be proven to be spherical, it therefore logically follows that there must be either landmass or men on the opposite side of the Earth. He thus indirectly grants that it is possible the Earth is spherical: “...although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled" (St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVI, Chap. 9).

3. Two quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas deal with the sphericity of the Earth, both from his Summa Theologiae. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I-I, Q. 1, A. 1: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.”

In this quote he refers to an astronomer who proves the earth to be round by the shapes of eclipses, or a physicist by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center (evidently referring to gravity): St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I-II, Q. 54, A. 2: The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.”

4. Pope Alexander VI in HIS May 4, 1493 Papal Bull Inter Caetera specifically refers to the Arctic North Pole and the Antarctic South Pole twice: "And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with the benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. [...] Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication late sententie to be incurred ipso facto, should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare, without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.”

5. The Douay Rheims (the official Bible of the Church) refers to 'the globe of the earth,' such as Isaias (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.”

6. In the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Catherine Laboure for the Miraculous Medal, Our Lady was standing on a globe and was holding a globe which she said represents the world and especially France: "The first of these apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Miraculous Medal). In fact, the original design for the Miraculous Medal was called 'Our Lady of the Globe.' Fr. Joseph Dirvin relays this point: “Suddenly, Catherine’s heart leaped. She had heard it—that rustling, that faint swish of silk she could never forget, the sound of Our Lady’s gown as she walked! There it was again—and there was the Queen of Heaven, there in the sanctuary, standing upon a globe. She shone as the morning rising, a radiant vision, “in all her perfect beauty,” as Catherine said later.” [...] “The Virgin held in her hands a golden ball which she seemed to offer to God, for her eyes were raised heavenward. Suddenly, her hands were resplendent with rings set with precious stones that glittered and flashed in a brilliant cascade of light. So bright was the flood of glory cast upon the globe below that Catherine could no longer see Our Lady’s feet. Mary lowered her eyes and looked full at Sister Laboure. Her lips did not move, but Catherine heard a voice. ‘The ball which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.’ These words stirred the heart of the Sister with fresh transports of joy, and the dazzling rays seemed to her to increase to blinding brilliance. ‘These rays symbolize the graces I shed upon those who ask for them. The gems from which rays do not fall are the graces for which souls forget to ask.’ At this moment, Catherine was so lost in delight that she scarcely knew where she was, whether she lived or died. The golden ball vanished from Mary’s hands; her arms swept wide in a gesture of motherly compassion, while from her jeweled fingers the rays of light streamed upon the white globe at her feet. An oval frame formed around the Blessed Virgin, and written within it in letters of gold Catherine read the words: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee" (Saint Catherine Labouré of the Miraculous Medal, 1958, Ch. VII).

7. The following two quotes are from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, referring to St. Virgilius of Salzburg (canonized in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX), who was initially reprimanded but then cleared for believing that there are people (Antipodes) on the other side of the earth, i.e., “upside down”: “Later on, St. Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the earth, which was "contrary to the Scriptures". Pope Zachary's decision in this case was that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity" (Jaffe, "Biblioth. rerum germ.", III, 191). Unfortunately we no longer possess the treatise in which Vergilius expounded his doctrine. Two things, however, are certain: first, that there was involved the problem of original sin and the universality of redemption; secondly, that Vergilius succeeded in freeing himself from the charge of teaching a doctrine contrary to Scripture. It is likely that Boniface misunderstood him, taking it for granted, perhaps, that if there are antipodes, the "other race of men" are not descendants of Adam and were not redeemed by Christ. Vergilius, no doubt, had little difficulty in showing that his doctrine did not involve consequences of that kind” (Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Vergilius of Salzburg, 1912).

The second: “From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (1 May, 748), addressed to St. Boniface, we learn that the great Apostle of Germany had invoked the papal censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians named Vergilius, generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman, and later Archbishop of Salzburg. Among other alleged misdeeds and errors was numbered that of holding "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon". In reply, the Pope directs St. Boniface to convoke a council and, "if it be made clear" that Vergilius adheres to this "perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord and to his own soul", to "expel him from the Church, deprived of his priestly dignity". This is the only information that we possess regarding an incident which is made to figure largely in the imaginary warfare between theology and science. That Vergilius was ever really tried, condemned, or forced to retract, is an assumption without any foundation in history. On the contrary, if he was in fact the future Archbishop of Salzburg, it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by "other men" he did not understand a race of human beings not descended from Adam and redeemed by the Lord; for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope to be ‘perverse’ and ‘contrary to the Lord'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Antipodes, 1912).

8. Sacrobosco's De sphaera mundi, in English, being 'On the Sphere of the World,' was the most influential astronomy textbook of the 13th century and required reading by students in all Western European universities, and described the world as a sphere: “Though principally about the universe, De sphaera contains a clear description of the Earth as a sphere which agrees with widespread opinion in Europe during the higher Middle Ages, in contrast to statements of some 19th- and 20th-century historians that medieval scholars thought the Earth was flat. (Wikipedia, De sphaera mundi, Spherical Earth).

9. “The monk Bede (c. 672–735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus, The Reckoning of Time, that the Earth was round ('not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembl[ing] more a ball'), explaining the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of the Earth. Ælfric of Eynsham paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying 'Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land'” (Wikipedia, Flat Earth, Early Middle Ages).
The church of course, did not exist, until centuries after Genesis was written. And so, whether they felt that it did or did not teach geocentrism or a flat earth is kind of a secondary question, given that they aren't the original authors and audience. But I guess that it's also fair to say that, many, if not all, in the early church did indeed believe in geocentrism and thought that the Bible did teach as such.

But overall I agree with what you're saying. I don't think it changes much in the discussion however. What a pope thought in the 12th century AD doesn't really dictate what the ancient Israelites thought, many centuries earlier.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
18
Bible Belt
✟44,229.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's fine.


The church of course, did not exist, until centuries after Genesis was written. And so, whether they felt that it did or did not teach geocentrism or a flat earth is kind of a secondary question, given that they aren't the original authors and audience. But I guess that it's also fair to say that, many, if not all, in the early church did indeed believe in geocentrism and thought that the Bible did teach as such.

But overall I agree with what you're saying. I don't think it changes much in the discussion however. What a pope thought in the 12th century AD doesn't really dictate what the ancient Israelites thought, many centuries earlier.
I'm glad you agree! :heart:

I agree that the Church in its Christological form did not exist during the time of Genesis, but the teaching [or, through extension, the grace of teaching] that God gave the Tribe of Judah (the proto-type), the Temple (the type), then the Church (actualization) is fully consistent, as God does not change. The divine inspiration to proclaim and teach [and moreso to enscribe] was/is given to the Church in the same way as the scribes of the Scriptures were given; Thus, the teaching would naturally remain consistent through the different vessels of the Lord, and the truth of the Genesis scripture would be relayed to the Church and would therefore be able to be proclaimed in its actualized form.
But I guess that it's also fair to say that, many, if not all, in the early church did indeed believe in geocentrism and thought that the Bible did teach as such.
The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers is important for establishing a general foundation for the Church's understanding of Genesis. Likewise, many of the Fathers did proclaim not only a form of geocentricity but, moreover, the [relatively] spherical earth.
I don't think it changes much in the discussion however. What a pope thought in the 12th century AD doesn't really dictate what the ancient Israelites thought, many centuries earlier.
At least for Catholics, the teaching of the Church historically is extremely important in how we should decern certain things; when it comes to science, the Church has the say, so if the Church were to proclaim unanimously that the earth was a plane, that would be valid, but it doesn't as we know. As for the Pope and the Israelites, I restate that the grace of teaching that God gave the Tribe of Judah, the Temple, then the Church is fully consistent, as God is unchanging and merely actualizes the teaching into a law binding on all believers. :crossrc:
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,149
3,085
Hartford, Connecticut
✟350,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm glad you agree! :heart:

I agree that the Church in its Christological form did not exist during the time of Genesis, but the teaching [or, through extension, the grace of teaching] that God gave the Tribe of Judah (the proto-type), the Temple (the type), then the Church (actualization) is fully consistent, as God does not change. The divine inspiration to proclaim and teach [and moreso to enscribe] was/is given to the Church in the same way as the scribes of the Scriptures were given; Thus, the teaching would naturally remain consistent through the different vessels of the Lord, and the truth of the Genesis scripture would be relayed to the Church and would therefore be able to be proclaimed in its actualized form.
I don't agree with this. Sorry! I agree that God does not change. But, the church has always had different interpretations of concepts with respect to things like geocentrism and the shape of the earth as well. Going back to the Galileo example, I totally agree that God does not change. But here is a simple example where the church has been confused about what the Bible actually teaches. And this was a universal view as far as I am aware, geocentrism, among historic church figures. Or if not universal it was common.
The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers is important for establishing a general foundation for the Church's understanding of Genesis. Likewise, many of the Fathers did proclaim not only a form of geocentricity but, moreover, the [relatively] spherical earth.
Well, geocentrism of course isn't correct. Here we have an example of church fathers holding incorrect views of not only science, but also of what the Bible teaches with respect to science. If someone argues that Joshua 10 for example, taught geocentrism, it wouldn't just be an issue of science, but also an issue of flawed interpretation of the Bible.

At least for Catholics, the teaching of the Church historically is extremely important in how we should decern certain things; when it comes to science, the Church has the say, so if the Church were to proclaim unanimously that the earth was a plane, that would be valid, but it doesn't as we know. As for the Pope and the Israelites, I restate that the grace of teaching that God gave the Tribe of Judah, the Temple, then the Church is fully consistent, as God is unchanging and merely actualizes the teaching into a law binding on all believers. :crossrc:
Ok!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
18
Bible Belt
✟44,229.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't agree with this. Sorry! I agree that God does not change. But, the church has always had different interpretations of concepts with respect to things like geocentrism and the shape of the earth as well. Going back to the Galileo example, I totally agree that God does not change. But here is a simple example where the church has been confused about what the Bible actually teaches. And this was a universal view as far as I am aware, geocentrism, among historic church figures. Or if not universal it was common.
It's okay! I'm glad you disagree! Since it is not an Obligatory Article of Faith, it's okay to hold helio- or geo- centristic views, so long as it does not discount the Scriptures, so no issue from me! :heart: [Some may say it matters, but soteriologically, it has no unique purpose; rather, it analyzes God's creation.]

On "the church has always had different interpretations of concepts with respect to things like geocentrism and the shape of the earth as well," the Magisterium did not decide the matter, so it could change from Pontiff to Pontiff; however, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it [regardless if St. Robert Bellarmine stated that Geocentrism was magisterially binding, it is not the case].
And this was a universal view as far as I am aware, geocentrism, among historic church figures. Or if not universal it was common.
True! And this has a lot to do with its authority in the Church.

(WARNING: LOTS OF LATIN, CATHOLIC CANON LAW) The Church has the right and the duty, for the protection of the heritage of Faith, of proscribing philosophic teachings which directly or indirectly endanger dogma. The First Vatican Council declares: "{the Church} derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science" (Dei Filius 1798). The reason geocentrism is not de fide is because it does not exactly reach the confines of the definition; as the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique states in regard to de fide statements: "when a religious truth "has been revealed by God, is contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition and has been solemnly defined as such by the Sovereign Pontiff or by an Ecumenical Council defining ex cathedra – that is with the intention of defining – assuming all the required conditions are met. — Or if a truth is presented as such by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. (Vatican I.)" While geocentricity is generally accepted by theologians, it was not solemnly defined by either a Pontiff nor a Council, as such cannot be de fide in its specific definition.

If it is not de fide, then it must be associated with one of the three degrees of non-de fide Catholic doctrine:
  1. Sententia communis ("common teaching") refers to beliefs that are generally accepted by theologians but not dogmatically asserted. From the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique, defining it as probabilis ("Probable," or "more probable"): "It is a proposal supported by eminent theologians approved by the Ecclesiastical Authority — and which, at the same time, is opposed by other equally eminent theologians. The degree of probability can be based either on the number and authority of theologians who support this proposition (extrinsic probability), or on the value of the arguments provided (intrinsic probability)."
  2. Sententia ad fidem pertinens, or theologically certain (theologice certa), refers to theological conclusions; those are teachings without definitive approval by the Catholic Church, but "[whose] truth is guaranteed by [their] intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation." From the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique, defining it as certum est ("is certain"): "When it is a truth deduced logically from two premises, one of which is formally revealed by God, and the other known by reason alone and not revealed elsewhere, nor contained implicitly in the revealed premise. The truth thus deduced is called THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION. Many formally but implicitly revealed truths are considered CERTAIN until they are solemnly defined."
  3. Sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") refers to teachings that are generally accepted as divine revelation by theologians but not defined as such by the Magisterium.
Geocentrism could technically fit the definition of sententia ad fidem pertinens, as it is not dogmatically asserted but is the Church's theological conclusion [and could not be sententia communis because no opposition was given from the decree of the eleven theologian qualifiers of the Holy Office in 1616]. This means it was deduced logically from two premises, one of which is formally revealed by God [the Scripture], and the other known by reason alone and not revealed elsewhere [Science], but does not have definitive approval by the Catholic Church, but "[whose] truth is guaranteed by [their] intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation." The importance here is that de fide statements require the assent of faith (or fides divina et catholica) from all Catholics, as they are infallibly proclaimed and central to the deposit of faith.

Geocentrism is NOT de fide, so Catholics are not bound to observe it, but is sententia ad fidem pertinent, so it is a matter that is 'up in the air' for Catholics to decide their stance on it. And, again, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it. But it could still be a possibility! :crossrc:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,149
3,085
Hartford, Connecticut
✟350,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's okay! I'm glad you disagree! Since it is not an Obligatory Article of Faith, it's okay to hold helio- or geo- centristic views, so long as it does not discount the Scriptures, so no issue from me! :heart: [Some may say it matters, but soteriologically, it has no unique purpose; rather, it analyzes God's creation.]

On "the church has always had different interpretations of concepts with respect to things like geocentrism and the shape of the earth as well," the Magisterium did not decide the matter, so it could change from Pontiff to Pontiff; however, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it [regardless if St. Robert Bellarmine stated that Geocentrism was magisterially binding, it is not the case].

True! And this has a lot to do with its authority in the Church.

(WARNING: LOTS OF LATIN, CATHOLIC CANON LAW) The Church has the right and the duty, for the protection of the heritage of Faith, of proscribing philosophic teachings which directly or indirectly endanger dogma. The First Vatican Council declares: "{the Church} derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science" (Dei Filius 1798). The reason geocentrism is not de fide is because it does not exactly reach the confines of the definition; as the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique states in regard to de fide statements: "when a religious truth "has been revealed by God, is contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition and has been solemnly defined as such by the Sovereign Pontiff or by an Ecumenical Council defining ex-cathedra – that is with the intention of defining – assuming all the required conditions are met. — Or if a truth is presented as such by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. (Vatican I.)" While geocentricity is generally accepted by theologians, it was not solemnly defined by either a Pontiff nor a Council, as such cannot be de fide in its specific definition.

If it is not de fide, then it must be associated with one of the three degrees of non-de fide Catholic doctrine:
  1. Sententia communis ("common teaching") refers to beliefs that are generally accepted by theologians but not dogmatically asserted. From the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique, defining it as probabilis ("Probable," or "more probable"): "It is a proposal supported by eminent theologians approved by the Ecclesiastical Authority — and which, at the same time, is opposed by other equally eminent theologians. The degree of probability can be based either on the number and authority of theologians who support this proposition (extrinsic probability), or on the value of the arguments provided (intrinsic probability)."
  2. Sententia ad fidem pertinens, or theologically certain (theologice certa), refers to theological conclusions; those are teachings without definitive approval by the Catholic Church, but "[whose] truth is guaranteed by [their] intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation." From the Sommaire de théologie dogmatique, defining it as certum est ("is certain"): "When it is a truth deduced logically from two premises, one of which is formally revealed by God, and the other known by reason alone and not revealed elsewhere, nor contained implicitly in the revealed premise. The truth thus deduced is called THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION. Many formally but implicitly revealed truths are considered CERTAIN until they are solemnly defined."
  3. Sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") refers to teachings that are generally accepted as divine revelation by theologians but not defined as such by the Magisterium.
Geocentrism could technically fit the definition of sententia ad fidem pertinens, as it is not dogmatically asserted but is the Church's theological conclusion [and could not be sententia communis because no opposition was given from the decree of the eleven theologian qualifiers of the Holy Office in 1616]. This means it was deduced logically from two premises, one of which is formally revealed by God [the Scripture], and the other known by reason alone and not revealed elsewhere [Science], but does not have definitive approval by the Catholic Church, but "[whose] truth is guaranteed by [their] intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation." The importance here is that de fide statements require the assent of faith (or fides divina et catholica) from all Catholics, as they are infallibly proclaimed and central to the deposit of faith.

Geocentrism is NOT de fide, so Catholics are not bound to observe it, but is sententia ad fidem pertinent, so it is a matter that is 'up in the air' for Catholics to decide their stance on it. And, again, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it. But it could still be a possibility! :crossrc:
I think that this suggests to me that someone could believe that the old testament describes an ancient cosmology that includes something like geocentrism, and that this would be a perfectly acceptable possibility, or a perfectly legitimate interpretation of scripture. If the church doesn't hold a specific position on the topic.
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
18
Bible Belt
✟44,229.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I think that this suggests to me that someone could believe that the old testament describes an ancient cosmology that includes something like geocentrism, and that this would be a perfectly acceptable possibility, or a perfectly legitimate interpretation of scripture. If the church doesn't hold a specific position on the topic.
Correct, an individual can believe in ancient cosmology, and that can be a legitimate interpretation, as the Church has not defined what is right and wrong on a specific topic [however, it must be based on reason, as Ott stated: "Truths of Reason, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with a revealed truth, e.g., those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of will), or philosophic concepts, in terms of which dogma is promulgated (person, substance, transubstantiation, etc.)." There are similar subjects in Catholicism, such as the physicality of Baptism, which is still a debated topic in some fields of study. However, no one is right or wrong on the topic until the Church defines [or has historically defined through de fide] one side or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
18
Bible Belt
✟44,229.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And this was a universal view as far as I am aware, geocentrism, among historic church figures. Or if not universal it was common.
St. Gregory the Wonder-worker (213-270): “And the life of men weareth away, as day by day, and in the periods of hours and years, and the determinate courses of the sun, some are ever coming, and others passing away. And the matter is like the transit of torrents as they fall into the measureless deep of the sea with a mighty noise. And all things that have been constituted by God for the sake of men abide the same: as, for instance, that man is born of earth, and departs to earth again; that the earth itself continues stable; that the sun accomplishes its circuit about it perfectly, and rolls round to the same mark again; and that the winds in like manner, and the mighty rivers which flow into the sea, and the breezes that beat upon it, all act without forcing it to pass beyond its limits, and without themselves also violating their appointed laws.” [On Ecclesiastes, Ch 1]

St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335-ca. 395): “The vault of heaven prolongs itself so uninterruptedly that it encircles all things with itself, and that the earth and its surroundings are poised in the middle, and that the motion of all the revolving bodies is round this fixed and solid center…” [On the Soul and Resurrection]

St. Athenagoras (ca. 133-ca. 190): “The Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odor of burnt-offerings,...but the noblest sacrifice to Him is for us to know Who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center.” [A Plea for the Christians, Ch. XIII, “Why the Christians do not Offer Sacrifices”]

St. Chrysostom (ca. 347-407): “For He not only made [creation], but provided also that when it was made, it should carry on its operations; not permitting it to be all immoveable, nor commanding it to be all in a state of motion. The heaven, for instance, hath remained immovable, according as the prophet says, ‘He placed the heaven as a vault, and stretched it out as a tent over the earth.’ But, on the other hand, the sun with the rest of the stars, runs on his course through every day. And again, the earth is fixed, but the waters are continually in motion; and not the waters only, but the clouds, and the frequent and successive showers, which return at their proper season.” [Homilies on the Statues, “Homily XII”]

St. Aphrahat (ca. 270-ca. 345): “For the sun in twelve hours circles round, from the east unto the west; and when he has accomplished his course, his light is hidden in the night-time, and the night is not disturbed by his power. And in the hours of the night the sun turns round in his rapid course, and turning round, begins to run in his accustomed path.” [Demonstrations, 24]

St. Clement of Rome (35-101): “The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation.” [First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch XX]

St. Hippolytus (170-235): “For what richer beauty can there be than that of the circle of heaven? And what form of more blooming fairness than that of earth’s surface? And what is there swifter in the course than the chariot of the sun? And what more graceful car than the lunar orb? And what work more wonderful than the compact mosaic of the stars? And what more productive of supplies than the seasonable winds? And what more spotless mirror than the light of day? And what creature more excellent than man?” [Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 1]

The holy fathers also interpret the Scriptures, starting with Genesis Ch. 1, in a geocentric way. In examining their writings, we also glean additional details about the structure of the cosmos.
  • In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
St. Anastasius: “‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Gen. 1:1].’ Do not let the natural philosophers respond that God began to make the origin of heaven from the earth, as from a center. For they say the center is the beginning of every sphere.... That which fails for men, succeeds for God. Therefore, so that you might learn that God does not follow the laws of nature, but creates in a way beyond nature and technology, Moses says here, ‘God created the heaven’— which is the sphere—‘and then the earth’—which is the center.” [Hexaemeron, “Book 1,” § VI.2, p. 21]
  • But the earth was invisible (unsightly) and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
St. Basil (ca. 330-379): “‘The earth was invisible.’ Why? Because the ‘deep’ was spread over its surface. What is ‘the deep’? A mass of water of extreme depth.” [“Hom. II(4),” Hexaemeron]
  • And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, and there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
St. Bede (ca. 673-735): “‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ At this point one day was completed—without a doubt a day of twenty-four hours.... Hence, it is also preferred to say that there was evening and morning rather than night and day, in order to reveal that what was then done by the circuit of that first and most excellent light is now known to be performed day and night by the circuit of the sun.” [On Genesis, Book One [1:5], 48:74]
  • And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be a division between water and water, and it was so. And God made the firmament, and God divided between the water which was under the firmament and the water which was above the firmament. And God called the firmament Heaven, and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
St. John of Damascus (ca. 675-ca. 749): “‘And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters [Gen. 1:2].’ For the deep is nothing else than a huge quantity of water whose limit man cannot comprehend. In the beginning, indeed, the water lay all over the surface of the earth. And first God created the firmament to divide the water above the firmament from the water below the firmament. For in the midst of the sea of waters the firmament was established at the Master’s decree. And out of it God bade the firmament arise, and it arose.” [“Concerning the Waters,” An Exact Exposition, Bk. II, Ch. IX]

St. Basil: “‘Let it be dividing between water and water [Gen. 1:6].’ The mass of waters, which from all directions flowed over the earth, and was suspended in the air, was infinite, so that there was no proportion between it and the other elements. Thus, as it has been already said, the abyss covered the earth. Therefore, the prodigious mass of waters was spread around the earth; not in proportion with it and infinitely larger, thanks to the foresight of the supreme Artificer, Who, from the beginning, foresaw what was to come, and at the first provided all for the future needs of the world.” [“Hom. III(5),” Hexaemeron]

So we see that St. Basil called “the deep” a “mass of water of extreme depth,” “infinite” and “prodigious,” “infinitely larger” than the earth, which was like a small seed in the middle of the deep. St. John of Damascus also said, “The deep is nothing else than a huge quantity of water whose limit man cannot comprehend.” The Apostle Peter wrote, “By the word of God were there heavens of old, and an earth having stood together out of water and in water (2 Pet. 3:5).” So St. Peter says that the earth was “in water,” matching this description of “the deep.”
1734372370676.png

  • And God made the firmament, and God divided between the water which was under the firmament and the water which was above the firmament.
When the firmament was created, this huge sphere of water was separated from the proto-earth and stretched out to the very edge of today’s universe. The “waters above” are the boundary and limit of our universe, possibly a thin shell and possibly of ice due to the low temperature of space. The firmament is the ether, the medium in which the stars and other celestial bodies were placed on day four.

St. Bede: “It is certain that this firmament is in the midst of the waters, for we ourselves see the waters that were placed beneath it and in the air and lands, and we are informed about those that were placed above it, not only by the authority of this Scriptural passage, but also by the words of the prophet, who says, ‘Stretching out the heaven like a leathern curtain; the One covering His upper chambers in waters [Ps. 103:3].’... But if it puzzles anyone, how the waters, whose nature it is always to flow and to sink to the lowest point, can settle above heaven, whose shape seems to be round, he should remember holy Scripture saying about God, ‘He bindeth water in His clouds, and the cloud is not rent under it [cf. Job 26:8].’...Although He willed to fix the liquid waters there, is this any greater miracle than that, as Scripture says, ‘He upon nothing hangeth the earth [Job 26:7; cf. Is. 40:12].’” [On Genesis, Book One [1:6-8], 48:76, 77]

St. Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength.... ‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’... Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that [the firmament] resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield.” [“Hom. III(4),” Hexaemeron]
1734372428443.png


St. Ambrose (ca. 339-397): “He Who commanded the waters to be separated by the interposition of the firmament lying between them provided also the matter of their remaining in position, once they were divided and separated. The word of God gives nature its power and an enduring quality to its matter, as long as He Who established it wishes it to be so, as it is written: ‘He established them unto the age, and unto the age of the age; He Himself set an ordinance, and it shall not pass away [Ps. 148:6].’ He said this concerning these waters which you say cannot exist in the higher parts of the heavens; for listen to the words which precede: ‘Praise ye Him, the heavens of the heavens—and thou water, the one above the heavens [Ps. 148:4].’” [“Hom. 3,” Ch. 3(10), Hexameron, FC, 42:53, 54]

Since the Scriptures use the word “heaven” to denote different things, St. John of Damascus clarifies: “The heaven of heaven, then, is the first heaven which is above the firmament. So here we have two heavens, for God called the firmament also heaven. And it is customary in the divine Scripture to speak of the air also as heavens, because we see it above us.... So here we have three heavens, as the divine apostle said (2 Cor. 12:2)” [Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk II, Ch 6]. Thus, according to St. John, the “third heaven” to which the Apostle Paul was carried off is the spiritual realm above the firmament and the waters above, which mark the boundary of the physical universe.

St. Basil further describes the properties of the firmament: “Therefore we read: ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be dividing between water and water [Gen. 1:6].’ I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name.” [“Hom. III(7),” Hexaemeron]
Here we have an example of church fathers holding incorrect views of not only science, but also of what the Bible teaches with respect to science.
It is true that sometimes the Church fathers made errors when they spoke about scientific topics. However, when it comes to geocentrism, they unanimously agree. There is a clear “consensus of the fathers.” After all, have the Church fathers ever been unanimously wrong about anything? (From: Geocentrism by Dormition Skete)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0