BoD and FE are not comparable. The Fathers were (almost) all in favour of both FE and BoD.
BoD and FE are also not comparable because the former is a doctrinal matter, the latter mostly a scientific matter, as I don't believe that there's a DOGMATIC consensus among the Church Fathers about the SHAPE of the earth per se. I do disagree with Dr. Sungenis' analysis and believe that the vast majority of them believed that the earth we walk on is flat, and when they're referring to the world as spherical in shape, they're taking into account the shape of the firmament (which some held was spherical, others semi-spherical, and a few that it was shaped more like a tent ... and that the world was basically shaped like a cone). There are some things, however, that very much appear to be based on their reading of Sacred Scripture: that the earth is in fact the CENTER of the universe (with some allowance made for it possibly being at the BOTTOM center vs. absolute center), that there's a SOLID firmament covering the earth and separating literal WATERS above it from inundating the earth, that there was a GLOBAL flood, part of which was caused by openings in said firmament that allowed some of the "waters above" to inundate the earth. Since these are based squarely on their reading of Sacred Scripture and they were unanimous in this reading, per Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII, their interpretation is definitive and must be held by Catholics.
But the vast majority of Church Fathers REJECTED BoD. 5-6 of them rejected it explicitly, 1 (St. Augustine) floated it tentatively but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence, and arguably a second (St. Ambrose), but the latter stated elsewhere that there's no hope of salvation for even the most devout catechumen who dies without the Sacrament, and his comments about Valentinian distinguish that he could be washed but not crowned. So the Patristic evidence is very much against BoD, as both the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens admits, and even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admits.
As for the later theologians, yes, I believe that they were mistaken. And I am perfectly entitled to my opinion until the Church steps in and rules on it.
from Msgr. Fenton (rejecting "Cekadism"):
When a private theologians ventures to analyze these statements and claims to find a Catholic principle on which the Holy Father’s utterance is based and some contingent mode according to which the Sovereign Pontiff has applied this Catholic principle in his own pronouncement, the only effective doctrinal authority is that of the private theologian himself. According to this method of procedure, the Catholic people would be expected to accept as much of the encyclical as the theologian pronounced to be genuine Catholic teaching. This Catholic teaching would be recognizable as such, not by reason of the Holy Father’s statement in the encyclical, but by reason of its inclusion in other monuments of Christian doctrine.
...
There is, of course, a definite task incuмbent upon the private theologians in the Church’s process of bringing the teachings of the papal encyclicals to the people. The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these docuмents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
Here Msgr. Fenton rejects "Cekadism", which has, unfortunately, caught on in sedevacantist circles, to the point of almost attributing an infallibility to the prevalent theological opinion. For nearly 700 years, all theologians were unanimous in the teaching of St. Augustine that infants who die without Baptism suffer (at least a little bit) in Hell.
Topic: Answering the Flat Earthers - Robert Sungenis Live | Wed, Oct. 19 2022 (Read 15958 times)