Finally notice how even BC and AD have been replaced by BCE before common era and CE common era.
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. A:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Fr. Scott actually used these militant atheist abbreviations? You're kidding! Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TjIVPTkfo
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.
Not to take away from the discussion, but got to ask, where is Fr Peter Scott originally from? From his accent, I'm wanting to say Australia or New Zealand, but neither one of those sounds quite right. Maybe South Africa? I honestly can't tell.
From down under ... Australia.Yeh, but it that video which I am only a couple of minutes into, he calls God Gard. It reckon he lost his strine.
Not to take away from the discussion, but got to ask, where is Fr Peter Scott originally from? From his accent, I'm wanting to say Australia or New Zealand, but neither one of those sounds quite right. Maybe South Africa? I honestly can't tell.Not to take away from the discussion, but who exactly was Jason Winschel back in October 2003? Aside from perhaps being a man after Fr. Scott's own "scientific" heart, he was a junior high school teacher in a public school (no, I'm not making this up) who somehow gained the dubious distinction of being the author of a strange cover story in The Angelus ( http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2235 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2235) ) in which he tried to square the circle on Galileo and the Church and in the process drew derision on the name of Robert Sungenis, the staunch defender and promoter of geocentrism. Sungenis politely requested a rebuttal in the pages of that magazine but was flat out denied the chance to do so.
From down under ... Australia.
... otherwise Australia is in hell.
Given my first post tried to keep FE out of this discussion Tradman insists that one of the Pythagorean heresies was a global Earth. It was not, for then the likes of St Thomas etc would all have been heretics. I have no doubt this website below will interest Flat Earth believers who have not read it. But remember the teaching of Trent before you read it.:When all the Fathers share an opinion for more than a 1000 years, whether or not they got into a boat to study it, it's automatically doctrine. The Fathers of the Church fought the Pythagorean globe for centuries and they talk about it a lot, in detail, and because it is all sourced from scripture, their opinions are the same. There were at least a dozen of them plus dozens of other Catholic notables supported them for centuries. And whether or not any of them got on a boat, they didn't need to sail around the world to be right because God Himself directs His Church. I honestly don't mean to be rude, but you gave at least two reasons why you are in defiance of your quote above. 1.Saying the teaching of the Fathers of the Church is erroneous because they couldn't back it up with science. 2.The Fathers of the Church are wrong for centuries because Thomas Aquinas couldn't be wrong in his personal opinion (which was never exactly forthcoming).
‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense that is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ ---Trent. (Den.-786)
In other words,when some of the Fathers - who all lived before the time when man began to sail the world - have an opinion, then it is not Christian doctrine, and any FE who tries to make it so is opposing the Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching.https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_C.html
Cassini,
I checked out that author you included the link in your last post. It was written by a heretic named Schadewald who attempted to debunk flat earth but also spent his life debunking your version of geocentrism as well as creationism.
An Opponent of Creation Science (Intelligent Design)[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Schadewald&action=edit§ion=3)]
At the time of his death, Schadewald had been active for almost 20 years in the effort to keep "creation science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science)," which he considered a thinly disguised religious doctrine, out of public school science classrooms. In 1983 he began attending creationist conferences, attending six major conferences in addition to the 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998 International Conference on Creationism. He reported on these with articles in the Skeptical Inquirer and Reports of the National Center for Science Education.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schadewald#cite_note-11) From 1986 to 1992, he served on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Science_Education), including two years as president.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schadewald#cite_note-12)
When all the Fathers share an opinion for more than a 1000 years, whether or not they got into a boat to study it, it's automatically doctrine. The Fathers of the Church fought the Pythagorean globe for centuries and they talk about it a lot, in detail, and because it is all sourced from scripture, their opinions are the same. There were at least a dozen of them plus dozens of other Catholic notables supported them for centuries. And whether or not any of them got on a boat, they didn't need to sail around the world to be right because God Himself directs His Church. I honestly don't mean to be rude, but you gave at least two reasons why you are in defiance of your quote above. 1.Saying the teaching of the Fathers of the Church is erroneous because they couldn't back it up with science. 2.The Fathers of the Church are wrong for centuries because Thomas Aquinas couldn't be wrong in his personal opinion (which was never exactly forthcoming).
You're also missing key pieces. Saturated with heliocentric lies about distances and planets and gravity, people became confused (as they are to this today) because there was further development of a hybrid opinion that earth is a floating stationary globe with the sun going around it. Perhaps some did it in a failed attempt to hold things in line with scripture and reason, others to be ecuмenical with the pagans and apostates who feigned proof earth is a globe. Who knows. The devil is the author of lies and it's always anything but the truth for him. Flat earth geocentrism is what the Fathers held and taught, and their model cannot be dismissed, according to the quote above.
It wasn't my intention to steer your thread away or be rude in any way. I am a geocentric model guy, also working against modernist SSPX priests with false theories that are destroying faith in the Fathers, the Church and scripture. I merely responded to the erroneous parts in the piece. You're basically claiming the same things I am, but support a globe earth, which undermines your disagreement with Fr Scott and Fr Robinson. We have all the tools we need to fight those guys, but must hash out our differences in order to unite against them to shut their heresy down. Between you and me, that would be the globe.
Also, we can do this elsewhere if you like, but this article is easily proven full of error: Appendix C: The Fathers of the Church and Flat-Earthism
‘It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no ........person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others, in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few flat-earthers, by the time of Eratosthenes (300BC), followed by Strabo (300BC), Crates (200BC), and Ptolemy (1AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted among the Greeks and Romans. Nor did this understanding change with the advent of Christianity. A few, at least two, and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistaking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no ........ person believed otherwise.’ ---Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)Those two quotes come directly from the pithy chapter "refuting" FE in The Earthmovers, p. 73.
Here are a few more heretics Tradman.
“All persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ ---- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
https://www.cabinet.ox.ac.uk/john-sacrobosco-de-sphaera-mundi-venice-1490
https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/mathematical-treasure-sacrobosco-s-de-sphaera
‘It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no ........person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others, in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few flat-earthers, by the time of Eratosthenes (300BC), followed by Strabo (300BC), Crates (200BC), and Ptolemy (1AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted among the Greeks and Romans. Nor did this understanding change with the advent of Christianity. A few, at least two, and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistaking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no ........ person believed otherwise.’ ---Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
Here are a few more heretics Tradman.
“All persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ ---- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
https://www.cabinet.ox.ac.uk/john-sacrobosco-de-sphaera-mundi-venice-1490
https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/mathematical-treasure-sacrobosco-s-de-sphaera
Stupid arguments. So we'll take the word of one "Jeffrey Russell" that (some) Church Fathers misinterpreted the Scriptures (where he has it right).Great response.
Second quote speaks about a "round" earth and it's not demonstrated what is meant by that. One of his sources, Hildegard of Bingen, is cited as promoting a round earth, taken out of context, but then she later says that no one lives on the antipodes because that's where Sheol and the Great Deep are. I believe you cited Hildegard, cassini, but for some reason a psychological block kept you from comprehending the second part of the passage which you yourself pasted in, that the bottom of the globe is where Sheol and the Great Deep are and that no one can live there.
Thirdly, and so what?
All the globe garbage is nothing more than confirmation bias from people who want to believe the earth is a globe, probably because they've been brainwashed into it and can't break free of the programming.
I have yet to read Sungenis' book as he at least attempts to take the subject seriously, where as the vast majority of globers simply dismiss it out of hand with facile arguments applied with confirmation bias (and Sungenis agrees).
Those two quotes come directly from the pithy chapter "refuting" FE in The Earthmovers, p. 73."Pithy." "Refuting". :laugh1: Good eye.
‘It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no ........person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others, in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few flat-earthers, by the time of Eratosthenes (300BC), followed by Strabo (300BC), Crates (200BC), and Ptolemy (1AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted among the Greeks and Romans. Nor did this understanding change with the advent of Christianity. A few, at least two, and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistaking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no ........ person believed otherwise.’ ---Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
(28) For a notice of the views of Cosmas in connection with those of
Lactantius, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and others, see Schoell,
Histoire de la Litterature Grecque, vol. vii, p. 37. The main scriptural
passages referred to are as follows: (1) Isaiah xi, 22; (2) Genesis
i, 6; (3) Genesis vii, 11; (4) Exodus xxiv, 10; (5) Job xxvi, 11, and
xxxvii, 18 (6) Psalm cxlviii, 4, and civ, 9; (7) Ezekiel i, 22-26. For
Cosmas's theory, see Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum, Paris, 1706,
vol. ii, p.188; also pp. 298, 299. The text is illustrated with
engravings showing walls and solid vault (firmament), with the whole
apparatus of "fountains of the great deep," "windows of heaven," angels,
and the mountain behind which the sun is drawn. For reduction of one of
them, see Peschel, Gesschichte der Erdkunds, p. 98; also article
Maps, in Knight's Dictionary of Mechanics, New York, 1875. For curious
drawings showing Cosmas's scheme in a different way from that given by
Montfaucon, see extracts from a Vatican codex of the ninth century in
Garucci, Storia de l'Arte Christiana, vol. iii, pp. 70 et seq. For
a good discussion of Cosmas's ideas, see Santarem, Hist. de la
Cosmographie, vol. ii, pp. 8 et seq., and for a very thorough discussion
of its details, Kretschmer, as above. For still another theory, very
droll, and thought out on similar principles, see Mungo Park, cited
in De Morgan, Paradoxes, p. 309. For Cosmas's joyful summing up, see
Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum, vol. ii, p. 255. For the curious
survival in the thirteenth century of the old idea of the "waters above
the heavens," see the story in Gervase of Tilbury, how in his time some
people coming out of church in England found an anchor let down by a
rope out of the heavens, how there came voices from sailors above trying
to loose the anchor, and, finally, how a sailor came down the rope,
who, on reaching the earth, died as if drowned in water. See Gervase of
Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, edit. Liebrecht, Hanover, 1856, Prima Decisio,
cap. xiii. The work was written about 1211. For John of San Germiniano,
see his Summa de Exemplis, lib. ix, cap. 43. For the Egyptian
Trinitarian views, see Sharpe, History of Egypt, vol. i, pp. 94, 102.Out of interest, when was this video made? Fr Scott is quite young in the image.
Also the questioner/challenge? near the finish, "Byron", has a definite Australian accent so I wonder if it was made when he was here in Australia. Does he still hold these views? Actually as he speaks and answers questions he sounds rather unsure of his stand.
I think I will end my part in this discussion by saying I will go along with St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas and the science of Geodesy that has long measured the global Earth.
I have no intention of simply trying to win an argument for the sake of the argument; I just want to get to the truth. I realize you do not want to extend this conversation even one more minute, but I must contest your statements because they have serious problems proving earth is a globe. My answers in bold.
“[T]he 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.”– Summa Theologica, Question 1, First Article
Not only is this "proof" incomplete, by itself it doesn't teach earth is a sphere because Thomas says, "may prove, for instance" showing that he's making a point about something else. It's not like he is expounding on earth being a globe. He hasn't supported anything with scripture, or digressed on how that notion fits, or why it must be true. This is the oldest trick in the book people use to try to support their bias, and it may fool some, but it doesn't hold water.
Another wrote: 'A little exposure to actual medieval thought, through primary text rather than commentary, blows the flat earth myth away. On page 1 of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae (that is, in the first article of the first question of the first part), he casually mentions the round earth on the way to proving something doctrinal: “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.” Thomas died in 1274. Dante’s whole Divine Comedy only works with a round earth; Dante died in 1320.'
Who is "Another" who wrote this? Clearly it's some glober's opinion. I'm sure Copernicus and Galileo or one of the other apostates would say the same thing, if they aren't the one who said it. More likely some modernist anti-Catholic said it. That doesn't make it true. It's just more confirmation bias. Are you not interested in the truth, Cassini?
Then another wrote: 'By any measure, Aquinas must be considered one of the "leading Christian thinkers during the Middle Ages." Yet, here is Aquinas clearly believing in a round earth! This made me curious to investigate what some other church fathers believed. Since Boorstein brought up Augustine, I looked there next. In City of God, Book XVI, chapter 9, Augustine discusses possible races of men who may have escaped the Flood of Noah. He writes:
"And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. ('Down under, Australia') But they do not remark that, 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.4"
'Note that the focus here is whether there were human survivors of the Flood. Augustine is commenting on the possibility of antipodes—people taking a boat to the opposite end of the earth, not sailing off of an edge. Augustine states that even if science does show a round earth, it doesn't follow that it has people on it.' Augustin then had no problem with a global Earth.
Again, confirmation bias. Augustine isn't saying anything remotely in favor of earth being a globe, here. Augustine is refuting antipodes, what he considers a globe problem. Augustine's opinion on the antipodes stood 1000- + years, is shared by all the Fathers, making it a doctrine we must believe. Augustine starts out calling the globe "scientific conjecture". As if that isn't enough, Augustine offers what "they" believe to be true as a given, just for the sake of argument, to make a point. Your bold statement doesn't support the globe at all, it's what Augustine reiterates as to what "they" believe, which is what he's arguing against: antipodes. Augustine says, "although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form", in other words, 'even if it were a globe', then he finishes with his point: that it still doesn't follow that people live in the antipodes.
Cassini, why would you even use this quote to support your case? If you're right, and earth is a globe, Australia is definitely in the antipodes. And we know that it IS populated. So if you believe this, you agree with his opponents, that Augustine was wrong about the antipodes. Are you really ok with that? How difficult is it to see that there are no antipodes and everyone is on the same level playing field, even Australia? What is so wrong with that?
Scientific proof of the Earth's curve,
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy, the science which deals with the methods of precise measurements of elements of the surface of the earth and their treatment for the determination of geographic positions on the surface of the earth. It also deals with the theory of the size and shape of the earth.
We've already shown in other threads, that geodesy is a fake science that measures the earth by creating a model out of thin air (by their own definition of geodesy), and then measuring it to fake that earth is a globe. That's not just the antitheses of science, t is a clever tactic used by liars to deceive. Don't fall for it.