CathInfo.com

Fr Scott begins (7.55 min) with the new dogma invented by the Protestant Georg Rheticus (1514-1574) who helped Copernicus get his book on heliocentrism out: 'that the Bible was not written to show us how the heavens go, but only how to go to heaven.' Fr Scott then quotes Leo XIII's Providentissimus deus because in it he says that science can make corrections to misinterpreted parts of Scripture. Pope Leo XIII had to say that because his predecessors had gone along with Pius VII's allowance of heliocentrism to replace previous literal geocentric meanings. Straight away (9-10 min) Fr Scott denies that the Scriptures actually reveal the sun moves around the Earth, just as Galileo said, that it was only describing what man sees and not as a truth.

Now if Fr Scott did his homework, had more faith in Catholicism than in his intellectual pride in 'science,' He might have noticed that in Leo XIII Providentissimus deus it confirms that if all the fathers agree on a matter concerning the meaning of Scripture, as the Council of Trent taught, then that cannot be changed. In 1616 the heresy was made formal because it contradicted all of the Fathers.  Moreover, if Fr Scott ever read Pope Benedict XV's Spiritus Paraclitus He would have read:

[19] ‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge” [how the heavens go], the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.
[20] Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Pope Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks --we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture….’

Fr Scott totally ignores the above teaching. At (14.58 min) he revises the Galileo case according to the lie that geocentrism was proven wrong. He actually tell his unfortunate listeners Galileo was not condemned for his heliocentrism but because of his defiance of the authority of the Church. Now that is the sort of nonsense they have to make up in the wake of that 1820 U-turn. The authority of the Church said that heliocentrism was formal heresy. Oh, and by the way, it still is, never having been abrogated.

This sort of twisting the facts and condemnation is normal since 1820 in order to make that U-turn look orthodox. Now Fr Scott, if geocentrism and the Church up to 1820 was proven wrong, then why did Einstein have to invent his STR and GTR? Science now admits geocentrism was never proven wrong, so why are you defending false science and not the Council of Trent and the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 that defined your opinion as FORMAL HERESY. Do you think you know better than all the Fathers, all the popes, saints and theologians up to 1741 at least, for that is what you are asserting in this diatribe of a Catholic homily.

At (15.40) Fr Scott refers to Modernism in a way that infers to read the Scriptures geocentrically is typically modernist. Modernism, according to St Pius X, he says correctly, was a false interpretation of Scripture. Now the first modernist, according to the judgement of three popes, Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII, was Galileo, with his updated reading of Scripture, the very same as Fr Scott and Fr Robinson teach to their seminarians, pupils and any who listen to then like this video up on Google.
He then goes on to quote the Biblical Commission of 1909 about age of universe etc. Now remember all these 'teachings' are post-1820 U-turn decisions, when science had aged the universe and Earth Billions of years old. They are not traditional Catholic teachings, but MODERN ones if you see what I mean. So if you want a faith based on 'true' science as Fr Scott and fr Robinson want, then you quote the modern ones as Catholic teachings.

Now listen carefully to (23.30) and you will hear what sounds like a demon asking questions to draw out more of this real modernism from Fr Scott. At (24.50) Fr Scott gets to 'when all of the Fathers are in agreement then they all testify to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Well here is why the Church of 1616 defined and condemned Fr Scott's heliocentrism as formal heresy:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

At (32.00 min) we have the Biblical Commission tell us that we cannot interpret Genesis scientifically. Now this is another modernist trick used to confuse. Genesis describes the supernatural creation of everything by God. Thus we cannot describe creation scientifically yes. But what about the Big Bangers and Pius XII attempt at the pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1952, and Fr Robinson's book, to make it the creation act of God? But what about the history in Genesis. Does that go too under the auspices of 'science?' Don't the Modernists dismiss this and put in their millions of years?

At (34.35 min) we have Fr Scott saying the Biblical Commission confirmed Moses as the author of Genesis. Then, straight away, Fr Scott warns us against the literary form that Genesis was written in. He says the Modernists, that is those who read Genesis literally, that is us Creationists. Fr Scott calls the literary form ‘which is much closer to fiction than reality.’(35.39 min). He then tells us Pope Leo XIII said it was written for ‘simple people’ ‘is not a classical historical narrative, not history as it would have been related by the Romans or the Greeks so it is not meant to be historical facts although the essential truths are historical facts.’  And that is what is declared by the Biblical Commission.’

Again here is what Pope Benedict says Pope Leo XIII taught;
[22.] Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics - out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo XIII on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples' narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with "sensible appearances" and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo XIII's Encyclical - viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error? --- Spiritus Paraclitus

For if you did believe Moses, you would believe Me also;
for he wrote of Me.(John 5:46)

Next came the opinion that we are not obliged to hold the world is 5,000 years old, it could be millions of years old.’ (56.58 min) So, were the two popes above telling us that Moses wrote down the truth but that this truth could be very different? See the chaos that there long-ages fraud has done to Scripture. I have no doubt that up to modern times, the age of the world was taken for granted to be that of Moses so there was no need to make things like that a dogma..

‘As to the Roman Church, about 1580 there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII the Roman Martyrology, and this, both as originally published and as revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, declared that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ.’ ---- A. White: A History, p.253.

But, like everything else in traditional creation theology, even that is now gone.


Finally notice how even BC and AD have been replaced by BCE before common era and CE common era.

Finally notice how even BC and AD have been replaced by BCE before common era and CE common era.

Fr. Scott actually used these militant atheist abbreviations? You're kidding! Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

EDIT: Cassini later answered that no, Fr. Scott did not use these atheist abbreviations. Whew!
I'm leaving my "If he did..." commentary, because it still PARTLY (MOSTLY?) applies. Basically Fr. Scott is not AS FAR GONE down the Modernist rabbit-hole as he would be, if he were using BCE and CE -- but he's still starting down that path all the same. It's just a question of degrees.

If Fr. Scott is going that far down the road of compromise, I'd say you need to avoid his Masses, or at least his sermons, for the sake of your Faith. This is NOT a minor issue. This isn't like failing to name the J**, where many keep their head down out of prudence. BCE/CE is NOT required to be used by priests today. I bet plenty of FSSP priests still use BC/AD.

Assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, and that Fr. Scott has adopted those militantly anti-God terms for before and after Christ, then he is clearly infected with Modernism to a large degree, and should be AVOIDED just as we avoid other Modernists, usually in the Conciliar Church.

But make no mistake. We don't avoid Novus Ordo priests because we disagree with them on architecture, music, personal taste, or because they're accepted by the mainstream Catholic Church. It's not their jurisdiction/authority/regular status with the Church that we are allergic to. It's MODERNISM, plain and simple.

In other words, if I'm going to avoid Fr. Bob, who is apparently "sent" by the visible, mainstream Catholic Church, because he is suspect of Modernism -- I do it to protect my Faith, which is the highest law -- then I must a fortiori (even more so) reject "Latin Mass" priests as well, if they are equally suspect of Modernism. Again, Trad priests don't even have the charism of jurisdiction, being "sent" by the bishop with jurisdiction, regular status with the Catholic Church authorities, etc.

If I'm going to jump off a cruise ship to save my life, because it sprung a leak, then I most certainly will abandon a mere lifeboat if it has the same leak! Why would I be more attached to a mere lifeboat than the oceanliner I originally bought a ticket for?