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

Author Topic: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX  (Read 2366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2528
  • Reputation: +1476/-202
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2022, 05:17:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.:

    ‘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.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31373
    • Reputation: +18646/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #16 on: August 05, 2022, 05:19:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ... otherwise Australia is in hell.

    That's kindof how I always thought about it, and so did the Brits when they set it up as a penal colony.


    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #17 on: August 05, 2022, 10:03:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.:

    ‘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.

    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 

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #18 on: August 05, 2022, 11:57:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]

    At the time of his death, Schadewald had been active for almost 20 years in the effort to keep "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] From 1986 to 1992, he served on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education, including two years as president.[12]


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2528
    • Reputation: +1476/-202
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #19 on: August 05, 2022, 12:19:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]

    At the time of his death, Schadewald had been active for almost 20 years in the effort to keep "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] From 1986 to 1992, he served on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education, including two years as president.[12]

    I read the article as a history of the subject matter, not as a rejection of it. Even heretics are capable of researching and recording historical facts. I put it up for those with an interest in FE, thats all.


    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9637
    • Reputation: +5255/-452
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #20 on: August 05, 2022, 08:00:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2528
    • Reputation: +1476/-202
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #21 on: August 06, 2022, 11:17:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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)

    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

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6284
    • Reputation: +3572/-619
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #22 on: August 06, 2022, 11:40:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘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
    Those two quotes come directly from the pithy chapter "refuting" FE in The Earthmovers, p. 73.
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31373
    • Reputation: +18646/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #23 on: August 06, 2022, 02:18:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘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).

    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).

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #24 on: August 06, 2022, 03:44:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stupid arguments.  So we'll take the word of one "Jeffrey Russell" that (some) Church Fathers misinterpreted the Scriptures (where he has it right).

    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).
    Great response. 

    I recommend Sungenis' book for one reason: to see how poorly he argues against flat earth. Had he really considered flat earth might be the truth he would have found answers to the arguments that he failed to address properly. As you read along, it's obvious he's not really getting into the subject with the intent to get to the bottom of anything, but to prove that his view going into the work is supported. It's frustrating to see how deeply the programming goes, especially for someone like Sungenis who has done a lot of good for the faith. But it also helps you have empathy for the struggle the Fathers endured.           

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #25 on: August 06, 2022, 03:55:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Those two quotes come directly from the pithy chapter "refuting" FE in The Earthmovers, p. 73.
    "Pithy." "Refuting". :laugh1:  Good eye.  


    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #26 on: August 06, 2022, 04:24:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘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)

    Ladislaus was right in his assessment.  Russell is laughable.  This is just one of many reasons why.   

    Let's see how far off from reality Jeffrey Russell is. Below, this Protestant historian is known for sourcing docuмents accurately.  I've truncated the text to keep it as short as possible but you can read the book here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/505/505-h/505-h.htm#link2H_4_0008
    White shows what actually happened with flat earth throughout the centuries.  He carefully and correctly references the Fathers of the Church, and even cites scripture, but then he mocks them both.  This is a fraction of quotes and teachings he actually properly sources, but his commentary in between is nauseating and should raise the ire of any Catholic who cares about the truth. 


    From the second Chapter of HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM by Andrew Dickson White

    The whole of this theologico-scientific structure was built most carefully and, as was then thought, most scripturally. Starting with the expression applied in the ninth chapter of Hebrews to the tabernacle in the desert, Cosmas insists, with other interpreters of his time, that it gives the key to the whole construction of the world. The universe is, therefore, made on the plan of the Jєωιѕн tabernacle—boxlike and oblong. Going into details, he quotes the sublime words of Isaiah: "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth;... that stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out like a tent to dwell in"; and the passage in Job which speaks of the "pillars of heaven." He works all this into his system, and reveals, as he thinks, treasures of science.
    This vast box is divided into two compartments, one above the other. In the first of these, men live and stars move; and it extends up to the first solid vault, or firmament, above which live the angels, a main part of whose business it is to push and pull the sun and planets to and fro. Next, he takes the text, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters," and other texts from Genesis; to these he adds the text from the Psalms, "Praise him, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens" then casts all, and these growths of thought into his crucible together, finally brings out the theory that over this first vault is a vast cistern containing "the waters." He then takes the expression in Genesis regarding the "windows of heaven" and establishes a doctrine regarding the regulation of the rain, to the effect that the angels not only push and pull the heavenly bodies to light the earth, but also open and close the heavenly windows to water it.
    To understand the surface of the earth, Cosmas, following the methods of interpretation which Origen and other early fathers of the Church had established, studies the table of shew-bread in the Jєωιѕн tabernacle.

    ...

     (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.




    Here White explains how flat earth was maintained in the Church throughout the centuries. Note again how he mocks the Fathers, and even scripture, just to make the Fathers look bad for their flat earth teachings calling them "myths". Also, White's assessments of who tolerated the pagan notion are provably wrong.

    Myths having this geographical idea as their germ developed in luxuriance through thousands of years. Ascensions to heaven and descents from it, "translations," "assumptions," "annunciations," mortals "caught up" into it and returning, angels flying between it and the earth, thunderbolts hurled down from it, mighty winds issuing from its corners, voices speaking from the upper floor to men on the lower, temporary openings of the floor of heaven to reveal the blessedness of the good, "signs and wonders" hung out from it to warn the wicked, interventions of every kind—from the heathen gods coming down on every sort of errand, and Jehovah coming down to walk in Eden in the cool of the day, to St. Mark swooping down into the market-place of Venice to break the shackles of a slave—all these are but features in a vast evolution of myths arising largely from this geographical germ.

    Nor did this evolution end here. Naturally, in this view of things, if heaven was a loft, hell was a cellar; and if there were ascensions into one, there were descents into the other. Hell being so near, interferences by its occupants with the dwellers of the earth just above were constant, and form a vast chapter in medieval literature. Dante made this conception of the location of hell still more vivid, and we find some forms of it serious barriers to geographical investigation. Many a bold navigator, who was quite ready to brave pirates and tempests, trembled at the thought of tumbling with his ship into one of the openings into hell which a widespread belief placed in the Atlantic at some unknown distance from Europe. This terror among sailors was one of the main obstacles in the great voyage of Columbus. In a medieval text-book, giving science the form of a dialogue, occur the following question and answer: "Why is the sun so red in the evening?" "Because he looketh down upon hell."
    But the ancient germ of scientific truth in geography—the idea of the earth's sphericity—still lived. Although the great majority of the early fathers of the Church, and especially Lactantius, had sought to crush it beneath the utterances attributed to Isaiah, David, and St. Paul, the better opinion of Eudoxus and Aristotle could not be forgotten. Clement of Alexandria and Origen had even supported it. Ambrose and Augustine had tolerated it, and, after Cosmas had held sway a hundred years, it received new life from a great churchman of southern Europe, Isidore of Seville, who, however fettered by the dominant theology in many other things, braved it in this. In the eighth century a similar declaration was made in the north of Europe by another great Church authority, Bede. Against the new life thus given to the old truth, the sacred theory struggled long and vigorously but in vain. Eminent authorities in later ages, like Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Dante, and Vincent of Beauvais, felt obliged to accept the doctrine of the earth's sphericity, and as we approach the modern period we find its truth acknowledged by the vast majority of thinking men. The Reformation did not at first yield fully to this better theory. Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin were very strict in their adherence to the exact letter of Scripture. Even Zwingli, broad as his views generally were, was closely bound down in this matter, and held to the opinion of the fathers that a great firmament, or floor, separated the heavens from the earth; that above it were the waters and angels, and below it the earth and man.

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9637
    • Reputation: +5255/-452
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #27 on: August 06, 2022, 10:45:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2528
    • Reputation: +1476/-202
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 04:27:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    “[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

    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.'

    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.


    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.

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 729
    • Reputation: +530/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Creation, according to Fr Scott, another priest of the SSPX
    « Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 09:48:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.