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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6

Author Topic: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX  (Read 7630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2022, 12:25:25 PM »
Quote from: Matthew on August 04, 2022, 10:40:09 AM

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


No Matthew, Fr Scott didn't use them. I just put them up to show how modernism, supported by the likes of Fr Scott and Fr Robinson, have gone with history, now trying to eliminate Christ as used in man's calendar.  Sorry for the confusion.
Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2022, 01:39:05 PM »
Quote from: cassini on August 04, 2022, 07:02:32 AM



Something is seriously wrong with this video.  The video starts out with an intro that says, "Welcome to another video by Flat Earth Trads." This is not a mistake because the video closes with a flat earth trads outro.  It is quite impossible the fake white stuff inside this Oreo cookie of a video would ever be promoted by a flat earth group.  Somebody is being seriously deceptive by bookending their own work with someone else's audio in order to deceive listeners.  Flat earth trads is a Catholic flat earth page online.  So why is 'flat earth trads' introduction inserted in a heliocentric apology video?  It appears one of the distributors or makers of this video wants to dishonestly steer Catholic flat earthers to heliocentric indoctrination.  Deceptive counter arguments has always been a problem for flat earthers but this is next level. Perhaps I'm wrong, and maybe those flat earthers didn't realize what was in this video or were posting it to show how awful Fr's video is.  


Cassini, you said: "I deliberately started a new thread on this post because I notice the original thread it was on was soon dominated by flat-earth posts, a subject that, unlike other aspects of cosmology, has never had any part in Catholic creation theology or heresy in the Church's history."

Flat earth geocentrism discussions on Cathinfo with dozens of quotes from the early Church Fathers who taught that the earth is flat from historical and traditional understanding of scripture regarding the shape of the earth is proof your statement is false. Why mislead people? Even if you personally do not accept the Church Fathers' scriptural flat earth position, that very point is at least in contention on these pages. If you hope to maintain credibility on the merits of your argument, you're not doing yourself any favors by drawing for readers a false conclusion.


Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2022, 01:49:16 PM »
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.
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2022, 02:21:29 PM »
Quote from: Tradman on August 04, 2022, 01:39:05 PM
Cassini, you said: "I deliberately started a new thread on this post because I notice the original thread it was on was soon dominated by flat-earth posts, a subject that, unlike other aspects of cosmology, has never had any part in Catholic creation theology or heresy in the Church's history."

Flat earth geocentrism discussions on Cathinfo with dozens of quotes from the early Church Fathers who taught that the earth is flat from historical and traditional understanding of scripture regarding the shape of the earth is proof your statement is false. Why mislead people? Even if you personally do not accept the Church Fathers' scriptural flat earth position, that very point is at least in contention on these pages. If you hope to maintain credibility on the merits of your argument, you're not doing yourself any favors by drawing for readers a false conclusion.

I knew it, four posts into this assessment of Fr Scott's faith and science, and the dogma of a flat Earth pops up, in spite of my attempt to keep this one about the heliocentrism and 'modern science' of two SSPX priests, stating that flat-Earthism is a subject that, unlike other aspects of cosmology (like heliocentrism, other worlds like Earth with intelligent beings on them), has never had any part in Catholic creation theology or heresy in the Church's history.

First of all it matters not how many Fathers believed in a flat-Earth, for it is well know Catholic teaching is that only if all the Fathers agree on a matter of faith and morals is it a Catholic teaching. And no matter how many such Fathers you can find tradman, you will not find them all. Your accusation amounts to those Fathers who did not believe in a flat-Earth Bible are not at one with Catholicism.  Proof that a flat Earth was and is not relevant to the Catholic faith is the history of the war against all other Pythagorean heresies and false philosophies. The Pythagoreans accepted a global Earth. Yet not once was that ever mentioned in any of the many condemnations of Pythagoreanism over the centuries.  In Professor Martinez’s books, he details every aspect of Bruno’s beliefs, the 54 heresies and philosophies he was accused of during his long trial by the Inquisition. Not one of these beliefs condemned had anything to do with the Pythagorean globalism of the Earth. So please Tradman, defend a flat-Earth by way of observation and explanation, but do not try to say it is a compulsory Catholic belief so anyone who does not believe in one is some sort of heretic. That will do more harm to Catholicism and those FEs who have every right to argue the case for a flat earth on natural grounds. 
Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2022, 03:52:52 PM »
Quote from: cassini on August 04, 2022, 02:21:29 PM
I knew it, four posts into this assessment of Fr Scott's faith and science, and the dogma of a flat Earth pops up, in spite of my attempt to keep this one about the heliocentrism and 'modern science' of two SSPX priests, stating that flat-Earthism is a subject that, unlike other aspects of cosmology (like heliocentrism, other worlds like Earth with intelligent beings on them), has never had any part in Catholic creation theology or heresy in the Church's history.

First of all it matters not how many Fathers believed in a flat-Earth, for it is well know Catholic teaching is that only if all the Fathers agree on a matter of faith and morals is it a Catholic teaching. And no matter how many such Fathers you can find tradman, you will not find them all. Your accusation amounts to those Fathers who did not believe in a flat-Earth Bible are not at one with Catholicism.  Proof that a flat Earth was and is not relevant to the Catholic faith is the history of the war against all other Pythagorean heresies and false philosophies. The Pythagoreans accepted a global Earth. Yet not once was that ever mentioned in any of the many condemnations of Pythagoreanism over the centuries.  In Professor Martinez’s books, he details every aspect of Bruno’s beliefs, the 54 heresies and philosophies he was accused of during his long trial by the Inquisition. Not one of these beliefs condemned had anything to do with the Pythagorean globalism of the Earth. So please Tradman, defend a flat-Earth by way of observation and explanation, but do not try to say it is a compulsory Catholic belief so anyone who does not believe in one is some sort of heretic. That will do more harm to Catholicism and those FEs who have every right to argue the case for a flat earth on natural grounds.

My words in blue.
I don't accuse the Fathers who didn't believe in the flat earth. What I've said over and over is that the Fathers who taught and digressed about the form of the earth, using scripture as their source, were all flat earthers.  The saints who weren't flat earthers, only expressed a statement of their personal opinion, but that is a separate issue. No saint ever taught about a globe earth and sourced it from scripture. 

Pythagorean theory was totally condemned in 1633, and that includes the globe earth.  You have the burden to prove this condemnation didn't include the globe earth: ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture’. 

Alberto Martinez' book on the Galileo Affair tells us: Members of the Inquisition were disturbed by Galileo’s Dialogue, partly because it offended the Pope but especially because it defied the personal injunctions of 1616 and the public Decree: his book taught and vigorously defended the ‘false Pythagorean doctrine’ as if it were true. Moreover, it was inadmissible to argue that a proposition was ‘probably’ true after the Church had declared it contrary to scriptures.165


Martinez also tells us:  Froidmont proudly declared, ‘this year in Rome the Most Eminent Cardinals have judged and condemned the errors of Pythagoras and Copernicus, and all the subjects [members] of the Apostolic See are barred from this doctrine.’ And in the margin of one page, he succinctly summed up Galileo’s final judgement: ‘Galileo was forced to abjure his Pythagoreanism.’191 

Martinez lists the problems about particulars of the argument:
on pg 205


Sixth Argument According to Genesis 1, there are waters in heaven above the firmament and beneath it. ‘Therefore the Earth’s Water is not contained only in the solidity of the Earth, and consequently the natural place of the Earth is not the centre, but possibly, outside it and carried in circular motion in a Great Orb.’   


On pg227 and 228

 Next, Inchofer summarized the third official action against the New Pythagoreans: the Sacred Congregation’s condemnation of Galileo in June 1633, and that the Index had decreed that his Dialogue should be prohibited in August 1634. Inchofer then quoted the key points of the proceedings against Galileo: 228 burned alive And from what has been said, the Judgment and decree of the S. Congregation, built upon the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, we have this about the Neo Pythagorean opinion, ‘it is false’, in the first place, ‘and entirely opposed to the divine Scripture, slithering perniciously into the Catholic truth’. Then, ‘It is repugnant to S. Scripture, and the true Catholic interpretation, [to be] minimally tolerated in a Christian man’, and finally, ‘totally prohibited ’.280 


And there we have it.  The Pythagorean doctrine is TOTALLY prohibited by the Church.  To include the Great Orb.  Other statements include the problem of the antipodes, so globe earth is out and to suggest it as a proposition is inadmissible. It was eventually put on the Index of Forbidden books as well. Again, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the globe is not included in the condemnation when the globe earth is one of the main teachings of the Pythagorean doctrine. 


Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
« previous next »