-
Original Here (https://flatearthtrads.wixsite.com/flatearthtrads/single-post/2018/10/03/Flat-Earth-Priest-on-St-Thomas)
A priest of the resistance who is flat earth has responded eloquently to the claims that St. Thomas Aquinas was in favour of the globe.
(Here is the article misrepresenting St. Thomas :https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round
Here is the original latin, with english translation: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm )
The article:
S. THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE FLAT EARTH
In regard those who argue that St. Thomas would have defended the doctrine of the spherical earth, we must understand the following: when the Angelic Doctor made his comment on In Aristoteles Stagiritæ De Cælo et Mundo, there is no intention to agree with the thought of Aristotle, but simply to comment on the philosopher; moreover, that St. Thomas is a theologian and presents himself with such authority. The commentary on Aristotle's text is of a scientific-philosophical nature, and in this context St. Thomas did not intend to be a teacher, except in what would have relation to theology. Greek philosophers, however, included all the sciences in their philosophical work and they all commented on the question of the earth and the cosmos.
S. Thomas does not say that such a philosopher's opinion is right, or that Aristotle's opinion is perfect. He simply shows that Aristotle has the most logical opinion, according to the most accurate arguments of the philosophers of the time, mainly because they did not have the tools to visualize a greater distance and did not understand why the human vision does not reach the infinite of the horizon.
With this and other arguments, Aristotle argues that the earth can be spherical, but also the center of the cosmos, which is very different from a Heliocentric model, as defended by the Pythagoreans who were enemies of Aristotle. So, it´s important to understand that what is contained in the works of St. Thomas on this subject is only an exposition of the purely scientific cosmology of Aristotle completely outside the scope of his Theologian authority and outside of St. Thomas' custom of using the arguments philosophical arguments of Aristotle to conclude theological theories. Indeed, all we know is that the Heliocentric model is condemned by the Church because this doctrine is against the Scriptures and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers.
So, Let us see why Aristotle comes to such a conclusion and what St. Thomas actually comments:
1 - Platonic Astronomy:
First we need to know how Plato thought about it. For Plato, the cosmos is an orderly creation with perfectly ordered movements. In his writings he insists on the following ideas:
- Sphericity of the Universe
- sphericity of all celestial bodies, including Earth.
- central and immovable position of the Earth.
- The stars (planets, moon, sun, stars) spinning around the Earth at different distances.
2 - Aristotle (384-322 BC), the most celebrated of philosophers, assumes the cosmology of Plato and applies to solve the problems he presented. The Cosmos of Aristotle is a large but finite sphere centered on the Earth. In favor of the immobility of the Earth, (denied only by the Pythagoreans) Aristotle brings a series of arguments. Claudius Ptolemy (II century of our era) will lay the foundations in the Aristotle system and propose the theories of Astronomy that will prevail until the fifteenth century. In the exposition in this book (De cælo et mundo) Liber II in the lectio xx - xxviii St. Thomas is commenting on Aristotle about the question of whether the earth is spherical or round: Duæ adducuntur de terræ motu ac quiete sententiæ, de figura item ipsius terræ an spherica an rotunda inquirit.
However, the most important argument is that the earth cannot move. “ostendit quomodo obviabant rationibus contra se inductis” (he shows how they meet arguments brought against them) . And S. Thomas explains that Aristotle removed false ideas about it: “falsum intellectum qui ex his verbis haberi posset.”(removes the false understanding that could be obtained from these words) And he says: also Timæo proved the earth is firm and settled in the middle(probat terram in medio esse locatamet firmatam).
The reasons why the Earth would be spherical are 3 (all them in a scientific character according to the knowledge of that time.) Probat terram esse sphericam rationibus astrologicis per tres probationes (he proves that the earth is spherical with astronomical arguments with three proofs)
The first proof is because of the lunar eclipse (prima, sumitur ex eclypsi lunæ);
Second: is based on the appearance of the stars that are round: secundum quæ sumitur ex apparentia stellarum.
Third: Because we can’t see the same horizon in any place and our vision does not go more than a few kilometers, so we could imagine that it is a proof that the world is round. In his enim qui habitant in sphera .Et ex hoc apparet quod terræ est figuræ rotondæ: Si enim esset superficiei planæ omnes habitantes in tota terræ superficie ad meridiem et septemtrionem haberent eumdem horizontem. (And from this it appears that the earth is rotund in shape especially according to its aspect at the two poles — for if it were flat, all those dwelling on the whole face of the earth to the south and north would have the same horizon).
And in that time, there were mathematics that calculated the diameter of the earth and also the diameter of the sun! (170 x bigger than the earth) mathematicorum et probant astrologi solem esse centies septuagesies majorem terra. We can see that all that the modern science claims the same things that the Greeks said more than 2000 years ago!
But, obviously today a simple observer of nature, with good instruments can explain and destroy the three arguments of the old philosophers proving that the earth is flat.
After having made this clear, let´s now try to understand the work of S. Thomas about Aristotle which say that the earth cannot move and, if the other arguments above were not available to him, he supposes that the better would be to consider that the earth is really flat!
He starts to say: Quidam, scilicet Pythagorici, posuerunt terram moveri circa medium mundi, ac si esset una stellarum,(the Pythagoreans, assumed that it is in motion about the middle of the world, as though it were one of the stars) ...dicunt eam revolvi circa medium cæli, idest circa axem dividentem cælum per medium,( assert that it is revolved about the "middle of the heavens," i.e., about the axis which divides the heaven through the middle) sed Philosophus ostendit quod impossibile est terram sic moveri.(but Aristotle shows that it is impossible for the earth to be thus in motion)
In other words: the Philosopher (Aristotle) excluded the opinions that the earth could spin: excludit opiniones eorum qui falsas opiniones circa terram habebant,
And also explains that all things move around the earth to the earth, so it must be stable and it can´t move in anyway: Assignat causam quietis terræ et dicit quod ex præmissis manifestum est quæ sit causa quietis ejus. Sicut enim dictum est, terra naturaliter est nata moveri ex omni parte ad medium :sicut sensibiliter apparet quod ignis naturaliter movetur a medio mundi ad extremum. Unde sequitur quod nulla particula terræ vel parva vel magna potest moveri a medio nisi per violentiam. Manifestum est quod multo impossibilis est quod tota terra moveatur a medio. (he assigns the cause of the earth's rest and he says that from the foregoing everything goes to the middle. For, as has been said, earth is naturally inclined to be borne to the middle from every direction, as our sense observations indicate — and similarly it is apparent to sense that fire is naturally moved from the middle of the world to the extreme. Hence it follows that no particle of earth, small or large, can be moved from the middle except by violence; so, it is plainly much more impossible that the entire earth be moved from the middle.)
Concludit propositum: quod terra sit in medio mundi quia omnia corpora gravia moventur ad medium terræ. (That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth ) Et sic, ex præmissis, nihil movetur in loco ad quem naturaliter movetur, quia ibi naturaliter quiescit. Sed terra aliquando movetur ad medium mundi, (from the foregoing as follows: Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world.) ut probatum est, ergo, terra nullo modo movetur. (Therefore the earth is not in motion in any way)
After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)
-
A priest of the resistance who is flat earth has responded eloquently to the claims that St. Thomas Aquinas was in favour of the globe.
...
But, obviously today a simple observer of nature, with good instruments can explain and destroy the three arguments of the old philosophers proving that the earth is flat.
A priest said this? Really?
This statement by a "priest" is a good example of the axiom that nothing is in the intellect that is not prior in the senses.
If you err in observation, it's not surprising that you really mess up in philosophy and theology.
-
Original Here (https://flatearthtrads.wixsite.com/flatearthtrads/single-post/2018/10/03/Flat-Earth-Priest-on-St-Thomas)
A priest of the resistance who is flat earth has responded eloquently to the claims that St. Thomas Aquinas was in favour of the globe.
(Here is the article misrepresenting St. Thomas :https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round
Here is the original latin, with english translation: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm )
Whoever wrote this article (no evidence was offered to support the claim that it was a resistance priest) it misrepresents the position of St. Thomas.
S. Thomas does not say that such a philosopher's opinion is right, or that Aristotle's opinion is perfect. He simply shows that Aristotle has the most logical opinion, according to the most accurate arguments of the philosophers of the time, mainly because they did not have the tools to visualize a greater distance and did not understand why the human vision does not reach the infinite of the horizon.
St. Thomas refers to Aristotle's view as the truth.
He says at 532:
"Having determined the truth about the earth's place and about its motion or rest, the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape. First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations."
St. Thomas says that Aristotle (aka The Philosopher) determined the truth about the shape of the earth. This means that St. Thomas, in contradiction to the claim of the article, is saying that Aristotle is right.
After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)
This quote does not come from St. Thomas's conclusion. It comes from an earlier section commenting on Aristotle describing and discarding incorrect arguments. Here it is in context at 493. I have underlined the part omitted in the article of the OP. It clearly changes the meaning of the passage.
"493. He gives a second argument at [352] and says that they add a further argument for the same, namely, that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest."
This is not the position of either St. Thomas or Aristotle. This is an argument ascribed to "they" i.e. others. This is made even more clear in the following the section:
"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, namely, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."
St. Thomas does not comment about Aristotle's view of the shape of the earth until section 532. As I have already shown, St. Thomas accepted that view as the truth.
This section of the article is so egregiously wrong that it can only be explained by lack of reading comprehension or intellectually dishonesty. I hope that it was not written by a resistance priest, since I would not like to see a priest having either of those characteristics.
-
very weak responses.
-
Concludit propositum: quod terra sit in medio mundi quia omnia corpora gravia moventur ad medium terræ. (That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth ) Et sic, ex præmissis, nihil movetur in loco ad quem naturaliter movetur, quia ibi naturaliter quiescit. Sed terra aliquando movetur ad medium mundi, (from the foregoing as follows: Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world.) ut probatum est, ergo, terra nullo modo movetur. (Therefore the earth is not in motion in any way)
After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)
The above two paragraphs are the most interesting in the analysis of the Resistance priest who is a flat-earth believer. To reiterate:
"That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth."
I've not really seen it explained in this context before. And he further notes that..."Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world; therefore, the earth is not in motion in any way."
He then concludes that...."To be stable, the earth must be flat: that if the earth is at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm."
Good food for thought.
-
Good food for thought.
Weak response.
-
Weak response.
Did you happen to notice that there was more to my post than just the line you quoted?
-
Did you happen to notice that there was more to my post than just the line you quoted?
Yes. Would you ask the same of the OPs post #4 in this thread?
-
Yes. Would you ask the same of the OPs post #4 in this thread?
Let me know when you make up your mind as to whose post you want to address. I'll respond to any question that you have about my post.
-
The above two paragraphs are the most interesting in the analysis of the Resistance priest who is a flat-earth believer. To reiterate:
"That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth."
I've not really seen it explained in this context before. And he further notes that..."Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world; therefore, the earth is not in motion in any way."
He then concludes that...."To be stable, the earth must be flat: that if the earth is at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm."
Good food for thought.
You have not seen it before because it's wrong. It is completely clear in the source docuмent that this is not the position of either Aristotle or St. Thomas. This is not good food for thought.
St. Thomas does not conclude "To be stable, the earth must be flat: that if the earth is at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm."
This was an idea held by others at the time of Aristotle. Aristotle noted it in order to reject it and St. Thomas agreed with Aristotle.
There is no ambiguity. Anyone who bothers to read through the St. Thomas text linked in the OP https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm) can see that the bit about the earth being flat is in a section on incorrect arguments.
I already wrote a post explaining all this in detail. Calling it a "weak response" does absolutely nothing to refute what I wrote. It is obvious that you will accept any argument, no matter how bad, as long as it comes to the conclusion you want.
St. Thomas believed that the earth is a sphere and explicitly said so in De Coelo. Pretending that he did not does not support the case for flat earth. It just shows that you prefer pretending to truth.
-
You have not seen it before because it's wrong. It is completely clear in the source docuмent that this is not the position of either Aristotle or St. Thomas. This is not good food for thought.
St. Thomas does not conclude "To be stable, the earth must be flat: that if the earth is at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm."
This was an idea held by others at the time of Aristotle. Aristotle noted it in order to reject it and St. Thomas agreed with Aristotle.
There is no ambiguity. Anyone who bothers to read through the St. Thomas text linked in the OP https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm) can see that the bit about the earth being flat is in a section on incorrect arguments.
I already wrote a post explaining all this in detail. Calling it a "weak response" does absolutely nothing to refute what I wrote. It is obvious that you will accept any argument, no matter how bad, as long as it comes to the conclusion you want.
St. Thomas believed that the earth is a sphere and explicitly said so in De Coelo. Pretending that he did not does not support the case for flat earth. It just shows that you prefer pretending to truth.
Nothing that you write above actually corresponds to what my post was addressing. You are dismissing the entire context, without actually addressing considering what is being said. Why don't you address it?
-
I've not really seen it explained in this context before. And he further notes that..."Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world; therefore, the earth is not in motion in any way."
Jayne, would you be willing to discuss even one of the issues that are addressed, such as the one above?
Do you think it reasonable that the earth is naturally moved to the middle, and if so, then it is not in motion in any way?
-
Jayne, would you be willing to discuss even one of the issues that are addressed, such as the one above?
Do you think it reasonable that the earth is naturally moved to the middle, and if so, then it is not in motion in any way?
This is an argument for geocentrism. There is no question that St Thomas believed and taught that. It is not an especially interesting topic to me nor is it relevant to the central premise of the article .
The OP produced an article which made the outrageous claim that St Thomas believed the earth was flat . It gave a completely bogus argument in support of this claim . I am not interested in discussing anything with a person who does not acknowledge that.
You repeated the article's misleading out of context quote as if it were a valid point. It is like people who quote the last bit of the Bible verse "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and claim the Bible teaches there is no God. Would you take anything seriously from a person who did that?
-
S. THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE FLAT EARTH
In regard those who argue that St. Thomas would have defended the doctrine of the spherical earth, we must understand the following: when the Angelic Doctor made his comment on In Aristoteles Stagiritæ De Cælo et Mundo, there is no intention to agree with the thought of Aristotle, but simply to comment on the philosopher; moreover, that St. Thomas is a theologian and presents himself with such authority. The commentary on Aristotle's text is of a scientific-philosophical nature, and in this context St. Thomas did not intend to be a teacher, except in what would have relation to theology. Greek philosophers, however, included all the sciences in their philosophical work and they all commented on the question of the earth and the cosmos.
S. Thomas does not say that such a philosopher's opinion is right, or that Aristotle's opinion is perfect. He simply shows that Aristotle has the most logical opinion, according to the most accurate arguments of the philosophers of the time, mainly because they did not have the tools to visualize a greater distance and did not understand why the human vision does not reach the infinite of the horizon.
Do you have an opinion on the above two paragraphs from the OP, Jayne?
-
Do you have an opinion on the above two paragraphs from the OP, Jayne?
I already gave my opinion in my first post of this thread. St. Thomas clearly does agree with Aristotle since he says that Aristotle "determines the truth". The article is incorrect to claim there is no intent to agree with Aristotle.
In general, St Thomas tends to agree with Aristotle, holding him in great respect. If St Thomas does not explicitly disagree it normally means he agrees. In this case, however, we don't even need to know that. Even a person without this background knowledge can tell that saying a position is " the truth" is the same as agreeing with it.
-
I already gave my opinion in my first post of this thread. St. Thomas clearly does agree with Aristotle since he says that Aristotle "determines the truth". The article is incorrect to claim there is no intent to agree with Aristotle.
In general, St Thomas tends to agree with Aristotle, holding him in great respect. If St Thomas does not explicitly disagree it normally means he agrees. In this case, however, we don't even need to know that. Even a person without this background knowledge can tell that saying a position is " the truth" is the same as agreeing with it.
Where does St. Thomas state that is the truth that the earth is a sphere?
-
Where does St. Thomas state that is the truth that the earth is a sphere?
Why do you keep asking questions that I have already answered?
-
Why do you keep asking questions that I have already answered?
Where did you address the question about St. Thomas saying that it is the truth that the earth is a sphere? You'll need to point it out, since I missed it.
It's a specific question, which requires more than a general answer.
-
Where did you address the question about St. Thomas saying that it is the truth that the earth is a sphere? You'll need to point it out, since I missed it.
It's a specific question, which requires more than a general answer.
My first post in this thread, reply #2. I gave an exact quote near the beginning of it.
-
.
Question: Why do you keep asking questions that I have already answered?
.
.
Answer: Because as a flat-earthdom syndromer that's the only way to continue the conversation since it's headed otherwise into unacceptable realms of unforgivable contradiction against the Shangri-La subjective fantasyland of flat-earthdomism.
.
BTW . . . It's nice to see you haven't lost your touch, Jaynek, in fact, taking some time off helps the virtue of patience.
You really need a lot of patience dealing with flat-earthdom syndromers. They keep asking the same questions!
-
.
Answer: Because as a flat-earthdom syndromer that's the only way to continue the conversation since it's headed otherwise into unacceptable realms of unforgivable contradiction against the Shangri-La subjective fantasyland of flat-earthdomism.
.
BTW . . . It's nice to see you haven't lost your touch, Jaynek, in fact, taking some time off helps the virtue of patience.
You really need a lot of patience dealing with flat-earthdom syndromers. They keep asking the same questions!
Patience requires charity, and Jayne does not have that. She assumes the worst of anyone who supports a flat-earth.
I'm surprised that you stayed away from the thread for this long, Neil. That must have been difficult.
-
My first post in this thread, reply #2. I gave an exact quote near the beginning of it.
Okay, thank you. It does seem that St. Thomas agrees with Aristotle about the shape of the earth being spherical.
-
Patience requires charity, and Jayne does not have that. She assumes the worst of anyone who supports a flat-earth.
I'm surprised that you stayed away from the thread for this long, Neil. That must have been difficult.
.
You're wrong on both counts, as usual.
Jaynek has far more patience than I do, and she's more charitable too.
She gives you chances every time she posts but you keep ignoring them.
I will give you credit, though, for having accepted her very gentle correction in your post above this one (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629721/#msg629721).
And no, it wasn't difficult for me because I have Jaynek's sterling example to follow! ;D
-
Where did you address the question about St. Thomas saying that it is the truth that the earth is a sphere? You'll need to point it out, since I missed it.
It's a specific question, which requires more than a general answer.
.
Wow. Just WOW!
So if only St. Thomas Aquinas had written the words, "It is the truth that the earth is a sphere," then there would have been no flat-earth movement? Is that all it would have taken? Apparently it would have been enough for claudel!
.
Because, if his writing of those words could have prevented this flat-earthdom syndrome epidemic, just imagine what could have been prevented if he had written something else.
.
Like what? you ask?
.
Well, what if, just what if, St. Thomas Aquinas had written that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, what then? I mean, instead of his writing that the soul of a baby girl doesn't enter the fertilized egg in her mother's womb until 63 days have passed (in conformity with the medical or biological thinking, "ensoulment," of the 13th century), if he only instead had written the words, "The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from every stain of original sin by being in the state of immaculate perfection from the very first moment of her conception," then we would not have had the Protestant Deformation, or the French Revolution, or the ominous rise of Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and evolution, or the cινιℓ ωαr or World War I or the Communist revolution!
.
If only St. Thomas had written one sentence. So then, it's his fault!
-
Okay, thank you. It does seem that St. Thomas agrees with Aristotle about the shape of the earth being spherical.
no it doesn't Meg.
Jayne has already long ago used this quote. But whats new about this article is that this priest has read the entire docuмent, which I doubt she has, and shown that the context is such that St. Thomas is simply making Aristotle's arguments and elaborating on them.
using the word probat (proves), does not mean that he agrees with it. This is wishful thinking on Jaynes part. We do things like this when we argue anothers case. Sometimes we forget to put it in parenthesis or to add "so he says". But this does not mean we agree with them.
What is also new in this docuмent is that St. Thomas gives even more weight to the flat earth argument. No one of us flat earthers seemed to know about this before. It is quite a discovery.
But Jayne ignores all that because she is scared of her husband.
-
Patience requires charity, and Jayne does not have that. She assumes the worst of anyone who supports a flat-earth.
Although I am grateful for Neil's good opinion of me, I am very aware that I fail in patience and in charity far too often. I am sorry.
-
Jayne has already long ago used this quote. But whats new about this article is that this priest has read the entire docuмent, which I doubt she has, and shown that the context is such that St. Thomas is simply making Aristotle's arguments and elaborating on them.
Yes, I cited that quote before, back in May when I first came across the tradidi article mentioned in the OP. At the time, I read De Coelo Book II, Lectures 21 to 28. This is the part that deals with the earth's motion and shape. Because I had read it back then, I immediately realized that the claims of this thread OP were incorrect. I reread it to have it fresh in my mind while writing my first post to this thread.
Have you read it? It does not say what you claim it does.
using the word probat (proves), does not mean that he agrees with it. This is wishful thinking on Jaynes part. We do things like this when we argue anothers case. Sometimes we forget to put it in parenthesis or to add "so he says". But this does not mean we agree with them.
This is a straw man. I never claimed that using the word "probat" shows that St. Thomas agrees. I said that referring to Aristotle's position as truth (veritas) shows that Thomas agrees with it. Under what circuмstances does a person say that something is the truth while disagreeing with it?
What is also new in this docuмent is that St. Thomas gives even more weight to the flat earth argument. No one of us flat earthers seemed to know about this before. It is quite a discovery.
St. Thomas describes the flat earth argument as one of the "false theories about the earth" (falsas opiniones circa terram ) rejected by Aristotle (at 494). How does this give weight to it? No flat earther seemed to know before about the position the OP ascribed to St. Thomas because he never held such a position. The OP article apparently made it up.
But Jayne ignores all that because she is scared of her husband.
Even if I were scared of my husband, he would not mind me saying that St. Thomas believed the earth were flat if there were any evidence to think such a thing. My husband has no objections whatsoever to me saying that Lactantius wrote that the earth is flat, since that actually happened.
I am not ignoring anything. Anyone can read what St. Thomas wrote in De Coelo for himself and see that it does not match the claims of the OP's article.
I decided some time ago to stop participating in flat earth threads because I find them too frustrating. I made an exception in this case because I had recently read the relevant section of De Coelo and knew how seriously the article misrepresented the position of St. Thomas. Now that I have drawn everyone's attention to this fact, I do think there is anything left to say.
-
.
"Now that I have drawn everyone's attention to this fact, I do think there is anything left to say."
.
.
............. [Typo: should have, ...I do not think there is anything left to say.]
.
Flat-earthdom syndromers writhe and squirm over the prospect of having to recognize where they've been wrong all along.
.
This is the audience that pays the bills of Jeranism, whose youtube videos generate enough income for him to not have to work.
-
.
The offending article, which flat-earthdom syndromers love to hate:
.
https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round
.
St. Thomas Held and Taught that the Earth is Round
[^ The title ^ found in the source book, published in 1918]
Submitted by Admin on 12 April 2018
Source : American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol 58, May 1918, p. 315 (https://archive.org/details/americanecclesia58cathuoft)
To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.
In his beautiful pageant, The Discovery of America, Dr. Coakley introduces Columbus as saying to the prior of La Rabida
"... My studies prove that our dwelling place is round ".
To which the gentle friar answers ("in great surprise"),
"You say 'tis round !"
And then Columbus :
"As round as is the ball beneath yon towering cross ".
Afterward, in the court scene when Isabella is told that Columbus holds the earth to be round, she is greatly amazed, and even the Cardinal shakes his head dubiously.
Now while the surprise of the Queen at hearing a cosmical theory which may not have passed from the University hall into the palace, was natural enough, a prince of the Church and the prior of a monastery ought not to have been unaware of the opinion held by many of the learned of their day that this earth of ours is really a sphere. For were not St. Thomas's Summa Theologica as well as Aristotle's Physics text-books at the time in the hands of university professors and students?
In both these familiar instruments of knowledge the sphericity of the earth is explicitly maintained. The Angelic Doctor mentions the subject in two passages of the Summa (P. I, Q. I, A. I, ad 2um, and P. I-II, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um) ; also in his commentary on the Sentences(II, D, 24, Q. 2, 2, 5um) ; in his commentary on the Post. Anal. (L. 41), on the Phys. (II, L. 3) ; and more at length in the De Coelo et Mundo (L. II, L. 26, 27, 28 ). One citation from the Summa will suffice for the present purpose.
St. Thomas is answering an objection against his conclusion that the principle upon which habits are classified is their formal object. It is urged that one and the same object may fall under different habits of science; "sicut terram esse rotundam demonstrat naturalis et astrologus". He replies : "Dicendum quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat naturalis, et per aliud astrologus. Astrologus enim hoc demonstrat per media mathematica, sicut per figuras eclipsium, vel per aliud hujusmodi. Naturalis vero hoc demonstrat per medium naturale, sicut per motum gravium ad medium, vel per aliud hujusmodi." And the rest (I, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um).
In other words, St. Thomas declares that Aristotle's assertion that the earth is round is capable of proof by two middle terms. The astronomer derives his argument from mathematics, that is, from the round shape of the earth cast upon the disk of the moon during an eclipse. The natural philosopher derives his argument from the physical phenomenon of gravitation, namely that "heavy" bodies tend toward the centre of the earth; therefore the earth must be round.
That the roundness here meant is certainly not that of a flat disk, but that of a ball or sphere is abundantly manifest from the teaching both of Aristotle and of Aquinas which is developed at some length in the Lectiones (26, 27, 28 ) on the second book of the De Coelo et Mundo.
Moreover, both these venerable teachers thought it probable that the ocean stretching beyond Gibraltar merged into the Mare Indicuм, which washed the eastern shores of India; and since this opinion was laid down in the second book of the Philosopher's De Coelo et Mundo, commented upon by Aquinas (Lect. 28 ), it is not so surprising that the great Genoese thought the earth was round and that by sailing westward from the pillars of Hercules he would reach the shores of India; or that until his death Columbus believed that he had actually landed upon the Asian continent. The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books.
J. F. S.
-
St. Thomas describes the flat earth argument as one of the "false theories about the earth" (falsas opiniones circa terram ) rejected by Aristotle (at 494). How does this give weight to it? No flat earther seemed to know before about the position the OP ascribed to St. Thomas because he never held such a position. The OP article apparently made it up.
Most people have switched off at this point, but for those who are still reading...
This is not true Jayne. The quote you give appears long after the flat earth point he makes. There is no clear connection at all showing that it refers to the flat earth argument. This is obvious who looks it up and reads it. It only took me five minutes to find both the quotes.
All it refers to is those theories which he said were false. And the flat earth is not one of them.
Sorry Jayne. Nice try.
Next please!
-
this priest has read the ENTIRE docuмent, which I doubt she has, and shown that the context is such that St. ...
-
This is a straw man. I never claimed that using the word "probat" shows that St. Thomas agrees. I said that referring to Aristotle's position as truth (veritas) shows that Thomas agrees with it. Under what circuмstances does a person say that something is the truth while disagreeing with it?
you went on to use probat.
he is referring to the truth as Aristotle saw it. Not as he did. It's called playing devils advocate.
-
.
The offending article, which flat-earthdom syndromers love to hate:
.
https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round
.
St. Thomas Held and Taught that the Earth is Round
[^ The title ^ found in the source book, published in 1918]
Submitted by Admin on 12 April 2018
Source : American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol 58, May 1918, p. 315 (https://archive.org/details/americanecclesia58cathuoft)
To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.
In his beautiful pageant, The Discovery of America, Dr. Coakley introduces Columbus as saying to the prior of La Rabida
"... My studies prove that our dwelling place is round ".
To which the gentle friar answers ("in great surprise"),
"You say 'tis round !"
And then Columbus :
"As round as is the ball beneath yon towering cross ".
Afterward, in the court scene when Isabella is told that Columbus holds the earth to be round, she is greatly amazed, and even the Cardinal shakes his head dubiously.
Now while the surprise of the Queen at hearing a cosmical theory which may not have passed from the University hall into the palace, was natural enough, a prince of the Church and the prior of a monastery ought not to have been unaware of the opinion held by many of the learned of their day that this earth of ours is really a sphere. For were not St. Thomas's Summa Theologica as well as Aristotle's Physics text-books at the time in the hands of university professors and students?
In both these familiar instruments of knowledge the sphericity of the earth is explicitly maintained. The Angelic Doctor mentions the subject in two passages of the Summa (P. I, Q. I, A. I, ad 2um, and P. I-II, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um) ; also in his commentary on the Sentences(II, D, 24, Q. 2, 2, 5um) ; in his commentary on the Post. Anal. (L. 41), on the Phys. (II, L. 3) ; and more at length in the De Coelo et Mundo (L. II, L. 26, 27, 28 ). One citation from the Summa will suffice for the present purpose.
St. Thomas is answering an objection against his conclusion that the principle upon which habits are classified is their formal object. It is urged that one and the same object may fall under different habits of science; "sicut terram esse rotundam demonstrat naturalis et astrologus". He replies : "Dicendum quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat naturalis, et per aliud astrologus. Astrologus enim hoc demonstrat per media mathematica, sicut per figuras eclipsium, vel per aliud hujusmodi. Naturalis vero hoc demonstrat per medium naturale, sicut per motum gravium ad medium, vel per aliud hujusmodi." And the rest (I, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um).
In other words, St. Thomas declares that Aristotle's assertion that the earth is round is capable of proof by two middle terms. The astronomer derives his argument from mathematics, that is, from the round shape of the earth cast upon the disk of the moon during an eclipse. The natural philosopher derives his argument from the physical phenomenon of gravitation, namely that "heavy" bodies tend toward the centre of the earth; therefore the earth must be round.
That the roundness here meant is certainly not that of a flat disk, but that of a ball or sphere is abundantly manifest from the teaching both of Aristotle and of Aquinas which is developed at some length in the Lectiones (26, 27, 28 ) on the second book of the De Coelo et Mundo.
Moreover, both these venerable teachers thought it probable that the ocean stretching beyond Gibraltar merged into the Mare Indicuм, which washed the eastern shores of India; and since this opinion was laid down in the second book of the Philosopher's De Coelo et Mundo, commented upon by Aquinas (Lect. 28 ), it is not so surprising that the great Genoese thought the earth was round and that by sailing westward from the pillars of Hercules he would reach the shores of India; or that until his death Columbus believed that he had actually landed upon the Asian continent. The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books.
J. F. S.
It's funny that your source posted says that Queen Isabella and the Cardinal believed the earth was flat, since you and Jaynek have claimed for months that "no learned Catholic ever believed the earth was flat."
You two both fell for Jeffrey Burton Russell's lie that Columbus and the people of the time did not really think earth was flat.
Your lie is no undoneby your own quote which states the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court when Columbus told them earth was "round, like a ball."
-
Most people have switched off at this point, but for those who are still reading...
This is not true Jayne. The quote you give appears long after the flat earth point he makes. There is no clear connection at all showing that it refers to the flat earth argument. This is obvious who looks it up and reads it. It only took me five minutes to find both the quotes.
All it refers to is those theories which he said were false. And the flat earth is not one of them.
Sorry Jayne. Nice try.
Next please!
The flat earth argument appears at 493 and St. Thomas refers to it as one of the false theories at 494. He wrote only one sentence between saying that some people believed the earth was flat and describing the preceding section as dealing with false theories.
You are perhaps confused by this particular translation's format of De Coelo. It interposes the original passages from Aristotle with St. Thomas's commentary on them. These sections are not written by St. Thomas. To understand the flow of his argument one should skip them.
In Lecture 21 St. Thomas comments on a passage from Aristotle giving an overview of the opinions of others at the time of Aristotle. It begins at 486 with "After presenting opinions about the position of the earth, the Philosopher here presents opinions about its motion and rest." As you can see, he summarizes previous points and introduces the upcoming ones.
Lecture 21, which includes the flat earth theory, ends at 493. It is, obviously, followed by Lecture 22. (This translation shows the passage from Aristotle that St. Thomas will be discussing at the beginning of the lecture. It has a different numbering system.) The actual commentary by St. Thomas starts at 494. He says, "After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, namely, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."
Just as he did in lecture 21 (and virtually all the lectures), he begins lecture 22 by summarizing what Aristotle covered previously and introducing where his argument goes next. It is clear that the flat earth theory that St. Thomas has just described is one of the false theories. It forms a transition from those who are wrong about the earth being in motion to those who correctly believe that it is at rest but for wrong reasons. This topic fills several lectures.
St. Thomas begins to comment on Aristotle's own opinions on the earth starting in lecture 26: "After pursuing the opinions of others concerning the earth, the Philosopher here determines about it according to the truth." Everything up to this point has been an opinion of people other than Aristotle (and false) while St. Thomas identifies Aristotle's view as the truth. ( hic determinat de ea secundum veritatem).
Then in lecture 27, St. Thomas specifically on Aristotle's view on the shape of the earth. This is what I have previously quoted from 532: "Having determined the truth about the earth's place and about its motion or rest, the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape." ( hic determinat veritatem circa figuram ipsius.)
Because each lecture begins with a summary of the preceding material and overview of what comes next, it is easy to to see the structure of the argument by looking at the beginning of each lecture. Anyone who does this for lectures 21 to 27 can see that St. Thomas includes the flat earth theory as a false opinion of others, while he discusses spherical earth while referring to it as truth.
You should spend more than five minutes looking for quotes and spend enough time to read and understand the structure and direction of the argument. Anyone who does this can see that St. Thomas gave no support whatsoever to flat earth theory and himself believes in a spherical earth.
-
.
"Now that I have drawn everyone's attention to this fact, I do think there is anything left to say."
.
.
............. [Typo: should have, ...I do not think there is anything left to say.]
Thanks for correcting my typo.
As it turns out, I need to rest today due to ill health and have time to spend on posting that I would not normally. So I have ended up making more posts after all.
-
you went on to use probat.
he is referring to the truth as Aristotle saw it. Not as he did. It's called playing devils advocate.
This sort of relativism did not exist in St. Thomas, having been introduced centuries later. For St. Thomas, as it should be for all people, truth means truth and does not vary from person to person.
When St. Thomas wrote " the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape.... he proves that the earth is spherical" (hic determinat veritatem ... probat terram esse sphaericam) he was talking about absolute truth. To deny this involves introducing an anachronistic subjectivism into his words to distort his plain meaning.
-
It's funny that your source posted says that Queen Isabella and the Cardinal believed the earth was flat, since you and Jaynek have claimed for months that "no learned Catholic ever believed the earth was flat."
You two both fell for Jeffrey Burton Russell's lie that Columbus and the people of the time did not really think earth was flat.
Your lie is no undoneby your own quote which states the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court when Columbus told them earth was "round, like a ball."
The source is a hundred year old letter to the editor in a journal for priests. The author was expressing surprise that a history book would claim that educated Catholics believed the earth was flat. He wrote: "The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books."
This priest is making the point that, since it is clear in the writings of St. Thomas that he believed and taught that the earth is a sphere, it is highly unlikely that a Cardinal or any educated Catholic would have believed the earth is flat as the quoted history book claims. The quote which states "the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court" is introduced by the author so that he may disagree with it. The article's author shows that the claim of the history book is not compatible with what is known from the works of St. Thomas.
It is quite true that one hundred years ago, few people were aware of this anomaly. History books in Britain and America regularly taught that Catholics at the time of Columbus Catholics thought the world was flat. Only those people with sufficient education to be directly familiar with medieval writers realized that this popular belief made no sense.
Nowadays, more people are aware of the truth and fewer history books make the false claim about Catholic beliefs. Jeffery Burton Russell traced this false claim about Catholics believing the earth was flat back to anti-religion and anti-Catholic authors. He makes a compelling case that this was the cause of the popular misconception. Many historians now accept his theory that it came from anti-Catholicism. Even those who question his theory about the cause cannot deny that virtually all the docuмentation from 700 AD onward shows that educated Catholics believed in a spherical earth. The only question is whether the falsehood about medieval Catholics believing in a flat earth was deliberately introduced by anti-Catholics or not.
-
Thanks for correcting my typo.
As it turns out, I need to rest today due to ill health and have time to spend on posting that I would not normally. So I have ended up making more posts after all.
.
So glad to hear you have more time to post! But that it's because of illness is NOT good news. Get better soon! Oh, you're welcome.
-
The source is a hundred year old letter to the editor in a journal for priests. The author was expressing surprise that a history book would claim that educated Catholics believed the earth was flat. He wrote: "The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books."
This priest is making the point that, since it is clear in the writings of St. Thomas that he believed and taught that the earth is a sphere, it is highly unlikely that a Cardinal or any educated Catholic would have believed the earth is flat as the quoted history book claims. The quote which states "the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court" is introduced by the author so that he may disagree with it. The article's author shows that the claim of the history book is not compatible with what is known from the works of St. Thomas.
It is quite true that one hundred years ago, few people were aware of this anomaly. History books in Britain and America regularly taught that Catholics at the time of Columbus Catholics thought the world was flat. Only those people with sufficient education to be directly familiar with medieval writers realized that this popular belief made no sense.
Nowadays, more people are aware of the truth and fewer history books make the false claim about Catholic beliefs. Jeffery Burton Russell traced this false claim about Catholics believing the earth was flat back to anti-religion and anti-Catholic authors. He makes a compelling case that this was the cause of the popular misconception. Many historians now accept his theory that it came from anti-Catholicism. Even those who question his theory about the cause cannot deny that virtually all the docuмentation from 700 AD onward shows that educated Catholics believed in a spherical earth. The only question is whether the falsehood about medieval Catholics believing in a flat earth was deliberately introduced by anti-Catholics or not.
.
We ought to be making a list of all the ways flat-earthdom syndromers misunderstand historical evidence and project their own bad habits of subjectivism (which is an error introduced by anti-Catholic modern philosophers like Immanuel Kant, d. 1804) onto the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived 5 centuries earlier. Your appropriate use of "anachronism (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629934/#msg629934)" speaks volumes. Next thing you know, flat-earthdom syndromers will be saying that St. Thomas is the one who introduced subjectivist philosophy by his own de facto application of its principles in his own writings!
.
(Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas! :furtive: )
-
It's funny that your source posted says that Queen Isabella and the Cardinal believed the earth was flat, since you and Jaynek have claimed for months that "no learned Catholic ever believed the earth was flat."
You two both fell for Jeffrey Burton Russell's lie that Columbus and the people of the time did not really think earth was flat.
Your lie is no undoneby your own quote which states the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court when Columbus told them earth was "round, like a ball."
.
You don't even recognize the fact that you're only digging your own grave with inane drivel like the above.
.
You've got it all wrong, don't understand what you're reading, and entirely missed the point of the letter.
.
Do flat-earthdom syndromers specialize in clown thinking? :jester:
-
.
Whoever wrote this article (no evidence was offered to support the claim that it was a resistance priest) it misrepresents the position of St. Thomas.
.
St. Thomas refers to Aristotle's view as the truth.
.
.
It's most interesting to note that all this time, since the beginning of this thread, your mention of the absence of evidence has gone unanswered. This mysterious "resistance priest" who doesn't know much about how to read St. Thomas or what is meant by the words written, or how St. Thomas regarded Aristotle, or what St. Thomas did with the extant writings of Aristotle, or how he dealt with the many centuries of tradition that had come down to us by the powerful effect that Aristotle's teachings had on future generations, remains obscure and unidentified most likely because he is not a priest at all.
.
Any resistance priest willing to put forth utter foolishness like that about the writings and "intentions" of the Angelic Doctor without identifying himself is very likely some layman pretending to be a priest; or worse, a combined effort of several flat-earthdom syndromers who think they can fake what a priest of their liking WOULD have to say IF he DID exist. IOW it's a phantom priest, a Shangri-La dreamland priest, an urban legend make-believe priest, a fake priest. One who has been custom-molded to fit the Shangri-La dreamland make-believe subjective reality of flat-earthdomism, where reality is in the mind. You know, like Immanuel Kant said.
.
-
.
It's most interesting to note that all this time, since the beginning of this thread, your mention of the absence of evidence has gone unanswered. This mysterious "resistance priest" who doesn't know much about how to read St. Thomas or what is meant by the words written, or how St. Thomas regarded Aristotle, or what St. Thomas did with the extant writings of Aristotle, or how he dealt with the many centuries of tradition that had come down to us by the powerful effect that Aristotle's teachings had on future generations, remains obscure and unidentified most likely because he is not a priest at all.
I hate to accuse people of lying but, I must admit, I find it difficult to believe that a priest would make the sort of mistakes evident in the article ascribed to a resistance priest in the OP.
Perhaps the people claiming it is a resistance priest are honestly mistaken and it was planted by an anti-resistance author with the intent of making the resistance look foolish and poorly educated.
-
The source is a hundred year old letter to the editor in a journal for priests. The author was expressing surprise that a history book would claim that educated Catholics believed the earth was flat. He wrote: "The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books."
This priest is making the point that, since it is clear in the writings of St. Thomas that he believed and taught that the earth is a sphere, it is highly unlikely that a Cardinal or any educated Catholic would have believed the earth is flat as the quoted history book claims. The quote which states "the queen, the friar, and the cardinal were "greatly amazed" in the court" is introduced by the author so that he may disagree with it. The article's author shows that the claim of the history book is not compatible with what is known from the works of St. Thomas.
It is quite true that one hundred years ago, few people were aware of this anomaly. History books in Britain and America regularly taught that Catholics at the time of Columbus Catholics thought the world was flat. Only those people with sufficient education to be directly familiar with medieval writers realized that this popular belief made no sense.
Nowadays, more people are aware of the truth and fewer history books make the false claim about Catholic beliefs. Jeffery Burton Russell traced this false claim about Catholics believing the earth was flat back to anti-religion and anti-Catholic authors. He makes a compelling case that this was the cause of the popular misconception. Many historians now accept his theory that it came from anti-Catholicism. Even those who question his theory about the cause cannot deny that virtually all the docuмentation from 700 AD onward shows that educated Catholics believed in a spherical earth. The only question is whether the falsehood about medieval Catholics believing in a flat earth was deliberately introduced by anti-Catholics or not.
No, the author is not expressing his own personal "surprise."
That is not what it says.
It says the queen, friar and cardinal were amazed to hear Columbus say earth was flat.
In fact, the author wonders aloud with his QUESTION asking "didn't theological textbooks of the time say earth was a globe??"
Obviously, since the author DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE TEXTBOOKS SAID, the obly possible conclusion is that they did not say earth was a globe. Otherwise, there is no reason for Isabella's, the friar's, and the Cardinal's SURPRISE.
-
Jayne,
I refer to your long post.
It is not clear that the false theory is referring to the flat earth one. Even though it comes after.
Even if it were, you still miss the point that he was simply representing Aristotle's argument.
This is not relativism as you claim.
This is all the more clear because when St. Thomas talks about theological matters he clearly gives his opinion. Whereas this text is not so clear. You would know this if you took the time to read other writings of St. Thomas.
-
The Resistance priest is real, some of us here have spoken to him personally.
He will identify himself when he is ready.
It should tell you something that he wrote an essay about the topic.
-
Jayne,
I refer to your long post.
It is not clear that the false theory is referring to the flat earth one. Even though it comes after.
Even if it were, you still miss the point that he was simply representing Aristotle's argument.
This is not relativism as you claim.
This is all the more clear because when St. Thomas talks about theological matters he clearly gives his opinion. Whereas this text is not so clear. You would know this if you took the time to read other writings of St. Thomas.
In the Summa Theologica (which I have read and studied a lot), St. Thomas gives the arguments of others in virtually every question he examines. It is the basic structure of the Summa:
Question - the topic under discussion, given in question form
Objections - opinions of others
"On the contrary" (sed contra) - statement of his own view, often citing an authority in agreement
"I respond that" (respondeo ) - an argument that supports his view
Replies to objections - counter-arguments against the wrong views of others
It is very clear from the structure when he is giving an opinion that he disagrees with and when he is saying what he believes himself. Similarly the structure of De Coelo indicates which is which. Much like the Summa, it starts with a section on opinions he disagrees with, followed by his own belief. The flat earth argument is in the section on false opinions.
In the Summa, he never refers to an opinion that he disagrees with as the truth. He only uses the word truth (veritas) to mean objective truth, never to mean the truth as someone saw it, i.e. an opinion. He wrote hundreds of years before people started abusing the word "truth" like this.
St. Thomas begins the section on Aristotle's beliefs about the earth with: "After pursuing the opinions of others concerning the earth, the Philosopher here determines about it according to the truth." There is no reasonable way to understand this other than as a statement concerning objective truth. He is stating that Aristotle is teaching the truth, i.e. St. Thomas agrees with him. This is not "simply representing Aristotle's argument." St. Thomas is clearly identifying that argument as the truth.
-
No, the author is not expressing his own personal "surprise."
That is not what it says.
It says the queen, friar and cardinal were amazed to hear Columbus say earth was flat.
In fact, the author wonders aloud with his QUESTION asking "didn't theological textbooks of the time say earth was a globe??"
Obviously, since the author DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE TEXTBOOKS SAID, the obly possible conclusion is that they did not say earth was a globe. Otherwise, there is no reason for Isabella's, the friar's, and the Cardinal's SURPRISE.
The author of that ecclesiastical review article introduces a "beautiful pageant, The Discovery of America" by a Dr. Coakley, in which Columbus says various things to a prior, the Queen, and a cardinal. I'm going to assume this pageant by Coakley is a play or story.
After relating parts of the story, the ecclestical review author begins to comment on it:
Now while the surprise of the Queen at hearing a cosmical theory which may not have passed from the University hall into the palace, was natural enough, a prince of the Church and a prior of a monastery ought not to have been unaware of the opinion held by many of the learned of their day that the earth of ours is really a sphere. For were not St. Thomas's Summa Theologica as well as Aristotle's Physics text-books at the time in the hands of university professors and students?
The question at the end is clearly a rhetorical question. The author is saying these textbooks existed and people in those states of life would have known about them. He goes on to reference other works of St. Thomas that say the same thing. He refers to the opinion of the learned of the day that the earth is a sphere - that is, what the educated at the time believed. Since this was a common opinion among the educated, it wouldn't actually have been a surprise to them to hear it from a Columbus.
I'm just posting this to explain what the ecclesiastical review author is clearly saying. I'm not affirming that it's right or it's wrong. Strictly speaking the letter is only about what people 100 years ago thought people 500+ years ago were aware of. I don't think this one letter to one journal a century ago has any significant bearing on the FE argument itself.
-
In fact, the author wonders aloud with his QUESTION asking "didn't theological textbooks of the time say earth was a globe??"
Obviously, since the author DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE TEXTBOOKS SAID, the obly possible conclusion is that they did not say earth was a globe. Otherwise, there is no reason for Isabella's, the friar's, and the Cardinal's SURPRISE.
It was a rhetorical question. He knew the answer and gave a detailed explanation of it.
I'm just going to go through the entire letter, giving a "translation" of it.
In his beautiful pageant The Discovery of America Dr. Coakley introduces Columbus as saying to the prior of La Rabida
"... My studies prove that our dwelling place is round ".
To which the gentle friar answers ("in great surprise"),
"You say 'tis round !"
And then Columbus :
"As round as is the ball beneath yon towering cross ".
Afterward, in the court scene when Isabella is told that Columbus holds the earth to be round, she is greatly amazed, and even the Cardinal shakes his head dubiously.
The author, JFS, starts by describing and quoting a history book by a Dr. Coakley, which portrays Catholics as believing in a flat earth.
Now while the surprise of the Queen at hearing a cosmical theory which may not have passed from the University hall into the palace, was natural enough, a prince of the Church and the prior of a monastery ought not to have been unaware of the opinion held by many of the learned of their day that this earth of ours is really a sphere. For were not St. Thomas's Summa Theologica as well as Aristotle's Physics text-books at the time in the hands of university professors and students?
JFS expresses his disbelief of the claims of Dr. Coakley. JFS concedes that Queen Isabella might have been ignorant, but a Cardinal and a prior of that time would typically have a university education and know what was taught there.
In both these familiar instruments of knowledge the sphericity of the earth is explicitly maintained. The Angelic Doctor mentions the subject in two passages of the Summa (P. I, Q. I, A. I, ad 2um, and P. I-II, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um) ; also in his commentary on the Sentences(II, D, 24, Q. 2, 2, 5um) ; in his commentary on the Post. Anal. (L. 41), on the Phys. (II, L. 3) ; and more at length in the De Coelo et Mundo (L. II, L. 26, 27, 28). One citation from the Summa will suffice for the present purpose.
JFS lists all the places in the works of St. Thomas where he mentions that the earth is a sphere.
St. Thomas is answering an objection against his conclusion that the principle upon which habits are classified is their formal object. It is urged that one and the same object may fall under different habits of science; "sicut terram esse rotundam demonstrat naturalis et astrologus". He replies : "Dicendum quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat naturalis, et per aliud astrologus. Astrologus enim hoc demonstrat per media mathematica, sicut per figuras eclipsium, vel per aliud hujusmodi. Naturalis vero hoc demonstrat per medium naturale, sicut per motum gravium ad medium, vel per aliud hujusmodi." And the rest (I, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um).
In other words, St. Thomas declares that Aristotle's assertion that the earth is round is capable of proof by two middle terms. The astronomer derives his argument from mathematics, that is, from the round shape of the earth cast upon the disk of the moon during an eclipse. The natural philosopher derives his argument from the physical phenomenon of gravitation, namely that "heavy" bodies tend toward the centre of the earth; therefore the earth must be round.
JFS gives as an example a detailed quote and explanation from the Summa.
That the roundness here meant is certainly not that of a flat disk, but that of a ball or sphere is abundantly manifest from the teaching both of Aristotle and of Aquinas which is developed at some length in the Lectiones (26, 27, 28 ) on the second book of the De Coelo et Mundo.
JFS gives further evidence of what St. Thomas believed and taught by citing De Coelo.
Moreover, both these venerable teachers thought it probable that the ocean stretching beyond Gibraltar merged into the Mare Indicuм, which washed the eastern shores of India; and since this opinion was laid down in the second book of the Philosopher's De Coelo et Mundo, commented upon by Aquinas (Lect. 28), it is not so surprising that the great Genoese thought the earth was round and that by sailing westward from the pillars of Hercules he would reach the shores of India; or that until his death Columbus believed that he had actually landed upon the Asian continent. The surprise is that the ecclesiastics of his day are thought not to have known the teachings of their school books.
JFS concludes by describing the belief of both Aristotle and Aquinas that sailing westward from Europe would lead to the Indian Ocean. JFS says it is not surprising that Columbus would believe this, since it was taught by the eminent authorities of his day. In contrast, JFS says that Coakley's claims are surprising, since it is not likely that educated Churchmen would not have known what was taught in the universities.
-
The author of that ecclesiastical review article introduces a "beautiful pageant, The Discovery of America" by a Dr. Coakley, in which Columbus says various things to a prior, the Queen, and a cardinal. I'm going to assume this pageant by Coakley is a play or story.
I was thinking it was a history book, but I looked it up and it was a historical play. It was written in 1917, the year before the article by JFS.
-
I must admit, I find it difficult to believe that a priest would make the sort of mistakes evident in the article ascribed to a resistance priest in the OP.
Perhaps the people claiming it is a resistance priest are honestly mistaken and it was planted by an anti-resistance author with the intent of making the resistance look foolish and poorly educated.
I too personally have doubts this was written by a priest, as I expressed in reply #2 to this thread. But I don't rule it out.
I do not personally know any resistance priests trained exclusively in a non-SSPX seminary, so I can't say much about that, but many of the resistance priests were SSPX priests, and the SSPX seminary formation is not currently at a high educational level. The seminarians are not systemically exposed to philosophy and theology in a structured way by an expert in the field. Except for Econe in the early years, the instructors at SSPX seminaries are themselves trained in the SSPX, and simply do not have the breadth and depth of understanding that someone with a canonical degree in theology would have had 50 years ago.
The consequence is that some topics are overemphasized while others are missed, leaving misunderstandings and gaps in their knowledge. Unfortunately, that means they are more susceptible to being misled. The devil knows quite well how to exploit such gaps and misunderstandings and is sure to try them.
-
In the Summa Theologica (which I have read and studied a lot), St. Thomas gives the arguments of others in virtually every question he examines. It is the basic structure of the Summa:
Question - the topic under discussion, given in question form
Objections - opinions of others
"On the contrary" (sed contra) - statement of his own view, often citing an authority in agreement
"I respond that" (respondeo ) - an argument that supports his view
Replies to objections - counter-arguments against the wrong views of others
It is very clear from the structure when he is giving an opinion that he disagrees with and when he is saying what he believes himself. Similarly the structure of De Coelo indicates which is which. Much like the Summa, it starts with a section on opinions he disagrees with, followed by his own belief. The flat earth argument is in the section on false opinions.
In the Summa, he never refers to an opinion that he disagrees with as the truth. He only uses the word truth (veritas) to mean objective truth, never to mean the truth as someone saw it, i.e. an opinion. He wrote hundreds of years before people started abusing the word "truth" like this.
St. Thomas begins the section on Aristotle's beliefs about the earth with: "After pursuing the opinions of others concerning the earth, the Philosopher here determines about it according to the truth." There is no reasonable way to understand this other than as a statement concerning objective truth. He is stating that Aristotle is teaching the truth, i.e. St. Thomas agrees with him. This is not "simply representing Aristotle's argument." St. Thomas is clearly identifying that argument as the truth.
To repeat myself, it may be the opinion of Aristotle that it was false, but not necessarily that of St. Thomas. It is not the same structure as the summa, so please don't try to give people the impression it is. That would be dishonest. And of course Jayne, you are never dishonest.
Remember also that this is in the realm of philosophy/natural science. It is not theological.
St. Thomas had more room to discuss things without making his opinion clear therefore.
He does not say authoritatively that the earth is round. It seems more the opposite in fact. Especially considering what the Fathers taught on this issue. So unlikely he would diverge from them since he knew them so well.
-
Unfortunately, that means they are more susceptible to being misled. The devil knows quite well how to exploit such gaps and misunderstandings and is sure to try them.
Not sure if you could sound any more smug and condescending.
-
To repeat myself, it may be the opinion of Aristotle that it was false, but not necessarily that of St. Thomas. It is not the same structure as the summa, so please don't try to give people the impression it is. That would be dishonest. And of course Jayne, you are never dishonest.
Remember also that this is in the realm of philosophy/natural science. It is not theological.
St. Thomas had more room to discuss things without making his opinion clear therefore.
He does not say authoritatively that the earth is round. It seems more the opposite in fact. Especially considering what the Fathers taught on this issue. So unlikely he would diverge from them since he knew them so well.
St. Thomas is a clear, logical writer who presents his ideas systematically, whether in the Summa or elsewhere. While he does not always use the same structure, he does not randomly stick an idea he agrees with among those that he labels as false opinions. Each lecture in De Coelo starts by saying what he has already covered and what he is about to cover. He described the lecture in which he wrote about flat earth as being about false theories. His opinion on this is completely clear.
It is quite true that he does not write authoritatively on matters of science. You are perfectly free to disagree with his view that the earth is a sphere. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that this is not his view. St. Thomas clearly and repeatedly says that Aristotle "determines the truth" about the earth. He is not merely describing Aristotle's views, but is identifying them, explicitly including spherical earth, as the truth.
-
St. Thomas is a clear, logical writer who presents his ideas systematically, whether in the Summa or elsewhere. While he does not always use the same structure, he does not randomly stick an idea he agrees with among those that he labels as false opinions. Each lecture in De Coelo starts by saying what he has already covered and what he is about to cover. He described the lecture in which he wrote about flat earth as being about false theories. His opinion on this is completely clear.
It is quite true that he does not write authoritatively on matters of science. You are perfectly free to disagree with his view that the earth is a sphere. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that this is not his view. St. Thomas clearly and repeatedly says that Aristotle "determines the truth" about the earth. He is not merely describing Aristotle's views, but is identifying them, explicitly including spherical earth, as the truth.
Jayne,
It is clear he is only representing Aristotles argument. You are trying to make things fit with your false thesis that everybody agreed with the sphere heresy in the middle ages. They did not.
Have a look at this map http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t264-flat-earth-with-antipodes
Does this look like a sphere to you? This is what people in the middle ages thought the earth looked like. A flat circle.
And this is from the 15th century http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t141-hieronymus-bosch-15th-century-painter-flat-earth-painting
Jayne my dear....
I could do this all day....
<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="LVt62UW"><a href="//imgur.com/LVt62UW">All Day[/url]<script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
https://i.imgur.com/LVt62UW.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM
-
Jayne,
It is clear he is only representing Aristotles argument. You are trying to make things fit with your false thesis that everybody agreed with the sphere heresy in the middle ages. They did not.
If it were really so clear that St. Thomas did not agree with Aristotle, why is the anonymous resistance priest the only person who ever claimed this? The priest who wrote the tradidi article and countless scholars understand it the way that I have explained. Most people understand that saying that something is the truth is the same as agreeing with it. St. Thomas agreed with what Aristotle said about the earth, including that it was a sphere.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Behaims_Erdapfel.jpg)
By Alexander Franke (Ossiostborn) - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1659761
The Erdapfel (German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): lit. earth apple) is a terrestrial globe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) produced by Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) from 1490–1492. The Erdapfel is the oldest surviving terrestrial globe. It is constructed of a laminated linen ball in two halves, reinforced with wood and overlaid with a map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map) painted by Georg Glockendon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Glockendon).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdapfel#cite_note-1)
The Americas are not included, as Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus) returned to Spain no sooner than March 1493. The globe shows an enlarged Eurasian continent and an empty ocean between Europe and Asia. The mythical Saint Brendan's Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Brendan%27s_Island) is included. Cipangu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Japan#Jipangu) (Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_archipelago)) is oversized and well south of its true position; Martellus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henricus_Martellus_Germanus)'s map is followed in developing an enormous phantom peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Tail_(peninsula)) east of the Golden Chersonese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Chersonese) (Malaysia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_peninsula)).
The idea to call the globe "apple" may be related to the Reichsapfel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsapfel) ("Imperial Apple", Globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) which was also kept in Nuremberg along with the Imperial Regalia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Regalia) (Reichskleinodien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskleinodien)).
-
.
I too personally have doubts this was written by a priest, as I expressed in reply #2 to this thread. But I don't rule it out.
I do not personally know any resistance priests trained exclusively in a non-SSPX seminary, so I can't say much about that, but many of the resistance priests were SSPX priests, and the SSPX seminary formation is not currently at a high educational level. The seminarians are not systemically exposed to philosophy and theology in a structured way by an expert in the field. Except for Econe in the early years, the instructors at SSPX seminaries are themselves trained in the SSPX, and simply do not have the breadth and depth of understanding that someone with a canonical degree in theology would have had 50 years ago.
The consequence is that some topics are overemphasized while others are missed, leaving misunderstandings and gaps in their knowledge. Unfortunately, that means they are more susceptible to being misled. The devil knows quite well how to exploit such gaps and misunderstandings and is sure to try them.
.
.
While the SSPX seminaries have been the only place for the training of resistance priests, that's beginning to change, fortunately.
In the meantime, the deficiency of a fully rounded education which you mention is a weakness, to be sure.
However, it would require a nearly complete ignorance of the most basic principles of thought in our age for any priest to fail this way.
For a priest to believe the earth is "flat" he would have to have grown up in a vacuum of ordinary experience.
.
The logic classes they teach in philosophy at SSPX seminaries would expose any student to the basics to avert that possibility.
And there are other courses as well, history, cosmology, geometry, and of course the Summa of St. Thomas.
There is no way any seminarian could make it through those courses while all along rejecting their effect = being able to THINK.
.
-
.
Flat-earthdom syndromers repeatedly remind everyone of their inability to think:
.
Jayne my dear (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110)....
I could do this all day (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110)....
.
While there is no requirement for them to prove their inability to think, they somehow feel compelled to keep demonstrating it!
.
-
.
Jaynek's quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630114/#msg630114) containing this:
.
The Americas are not included, as Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus) returned to Spain no sooner than March 1493. The globe shows an enlarged Eurasian continent and an empty ocean between Europe and Asia. The mythical Saint Brendan's Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Brendan%27s_Island) is included. Cipangu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Japan#Jipangu) (Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_archipelago)) is oversized and well south of its true position; Martellus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henricus_Martellus_Germanus)'s map is followed in developing an enormous phantom peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Tail_(peninsula)) east of the Golden Chersonese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Chersonese) (Malaysia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_peninsula)).
.
When Columbus sailed, he was fully expecting to encounter Japan or eastern Asia, but returned thinking what he had found was actually the various islands outlying India (perhaps Indonesia or Philippines as we know them today), since the inhabitants did not appear to be Asian people and more resembled the natives of India, which is why the indigenous American natives were called Indians. Columbus had no idea there was an entire continent system (North and South America) standing in the way of his voyage to the Spice Islands (where Magellan's ships eventually managed to encounter years later).
.
The mythical St. Brendan's Island could very well have been North America, since it is believed that Brendan the Navigator had found his way to cross the Atlantic to the shores of Newfoundland or New England. But the overall shape of the so-called island was a matter of utter conjecture, thus the completely inaccurate shape on this now ancient globe.
.
The lesson to learn here for us is that when your information is incomplete or your navigational methods and data is imprecise or worse there is no end to the mistakes you can make in your conclusions, mistakes such as the one you make by saying the earth is "flat."
.
-
.
Jayne,
It is clear he is only representing Aristotles argument.
.
.
How can you expect to have any credibility when you can't even manage to correctly place an apostrophe?
"Aristotles argument?" How many Aristotles were there?
-
However, it would require a nearly complete ignorance of the most basic principles of thought in our age for any priest to fail this way.
.
Yes, I agree it would take an extreme failure in education to fail in the way you are thinking of. In practice, some other issues would likely appear well before a priest were to "fail this way" specifically.
-
Yes, I agree it would take an extreme failure in education to fail in the way you are thinking of. In practice, some other issues would likely appear well before a priest were to "fail this way" specifically.
.
He would have to be a complete liar and a fake to pretend for years on end while secretly harboring denial of reality in his mind.
It comes really close to a Freemason making his way through to ordination only to emerge later as a sleeper.
But according to Bella Dodd, that's exactly what the Communists accomplished.
-
Yes, I agree it would take an extreme failure in education to fail in the way you are thinking of. In practice, some other issues would likely appear well before a priest were to "fail this way" specifically.
A failure of education this extreme should have prevented a man from entering the seminary in the first place, assuming that this actually is a resistance priest.
This alleged priest took a quote from a section clearly and repeatedly identified as containing false opinions of others and left out the beginning of the sentence which said "they make a further argument, namely that..." Instead, he presents this argument for flat earth as the position of Aristotle/ St. Thomas, introducing it with: "After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat."
This alleged priest also claims that St. Thomas does not say that Aristotle's opinion is right, in spite of the multiple instances of St. Thomas referring to Aristotle's views on the position, rest, and shape of the earth as the truth. For example, at 480, when St. Thomas outlines Aristotle's argument he says: First he pursues the above-mentioned three things [position, rest, shape] according to the opinion of others; Secondly, according to truth."
To make errors this serious, a person would have had to fail in basic skills of reading comprehension that he should have learned in high school. I'm not sure about the SSPX, but other seminaries I know of accept entrants who have post-secondary education. But even a high school graduate should have been able to understand from this docuмent that neither Aristotle nor St. Thomas thought the earth was flat.
If this article was actually written by a resistance priest, I suspect this could have negative repercussions for the resistance. This seems like something that could seriously undermine their credibility. And it draws attention to a possible weakness of the resistance. It lacks the authority structure that ought to exist in the Church. When a priest goes off the rails like this, there needs to a bishop over him to correct him. I am not sure this can happen in the resistance.
I have little knowledge, however, of resistance politics and dynamics. I would like to hear from others on this aspect.
-
Jayne,
the person with reading difficulties is you.
The point the priest makes is at the beginning which you ignore and it is that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument.
St. Thomas knew like everyone that the earth was flat. He does not say that the sphere earth as truth is his opinion.
You should be careful before attacking priests like this. A little bit of respect won't go too far astray.
On a side note, I think you are getting nervous because you see flat earth is taking off despite your arrogant resistance of it.
P.S. Thanks for publicizing the thread outside of the sub forum. You're doing good work for us ;)
-
You should be careful before attacking priests like this. A little bit of respect won't go too far astray.
If I see any evidence that this article was actually written by a priest, then I will apologize to him. I intend no disrespect to a priest.
-
If I see any evidence that this article was actually written by a priest, then I will apologize to him. I intend no disrespect to a priest.
You give much more respect in this case than I would.
If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.
But it still seems more likely it was written by a FE believer who was incorrectly referred to as a priest. It could also be a fαℓѕє fℓαg by someone seeking to discredit traditional catholics, though I don't think an isolated case like this would impact the whole.
-
You give much more respect in this case than I would.
If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.
But it still seems more likely it was written by a FE believer who was incorrectly referred to as a priest. It could also be a fαℓѕє fℓαg by someone seeking to discredit traditional catholics, though I don't think an isolated case like this would impact the whole.
Confront?
oh yea in the same way you consistently ignore challenging arguments made to you by flat earthers? He would just give you the evidence like you have been given already and you would freak out and run a mile! Which is what you do off screen, but put a bravado show when you're online.
You're a non entity my friend when it comes to challenging flat earthers. Neil made some good arguments in the beginning, but now he's gone nuts. Even Seven used to be good, but like Jayne, he became very repetitive.
Oh it's so boring in a way with you people. Obstinate in your heresy.
-
You give much more respect in this case than I would.
If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.
I think that a great deal of respect is due to priests in virtue of their office, even in cases of holding clearly wrong opinions. Also, it is possible for a man without intellectual attainments to be a holy priest. St. John Vianney was at first rejected by the seminary because he was considered too slow. His education had been severely disrupted by the persecution of Catholics in post-Revolutionary France and he was held to be quite ignorant.
I would not automatically avoid a priest for being a flat earther, although I would find it cause for concern.
-
oh yea in the same way you consistently ignore challenging arguments made to you by flat earthers? He would just give you the evidence like you have been given already and you would freak out and run a mile!
if such a priest repeated such nonsense after being corrected, that would mean obstinacy. On the internet we expect to find people obstinate in nonsense. I don't expect it from my priest - that's one of the reasons we avoid the N.O.
Jaynek, St. John Vianney had faculties to hear confession, so he was not just a simplex-priest. On the other hand, given the poor reading comprehension displayed in the flatearthtrads post, I'm not sure I would really trust its author to read the missal and apply the rubrics (red text) correctly.
-
if such a priest repeated such nonsense after being corrected, that would mean obstinacy. On the internet we expect to find people obstinate in nonsense. I don't expect it from my priest - that's one of the reasons we avoid the N.O.
Jaynek, St. John Vianney had faculties to hear confession, so he was not just a simplex-priest. On the other hand, given the poor reading comprehension displayed in the flatearthtrads post, I'm not sure I would really trust its author to read the missal and apply the rubrics (red text) correctly.
It is YOU who is obstinate.
YOU who has poor reading comprehension.
You have barely tried to respond to the flat earth arguments. Your worse than Jayne and Neil.
Claiming that it is nonsense without offering evidence means that you will never get out of your own self imposed system. It is all in your head.
Not only will there be more priests, but even Bishops. What will you say then? Nothing, because you believe in yourself and your own nonsense. It is the truth. Gods creation is part of our faith, and you are wrong to attack it with such arrogance.
-
Jayne,
the person with reading difficulties is you.
The point the priest makes is at the beginning which you ignore and it is that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument.
I understand that the author claims that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument. He is wrong and I have addressed this more than once, cf. replies #2, 14, 26, 33, 35, 45, 52. Throughout my posts I have given various quotes in which St. Thomas refers to Aristotle's view that the earth is a sphere as the truth. I have not ignored the priest's(?) claim, but given evidence that disproves it multiple times.
You dismissed this evidence by saying that I am misinterpreting what the word truth means because I believe the earth is a globe. I, however, am using the clear and obvious meaning. When someone describes a position as the truth, it means he agrees with that position. It is not a word one uses to simply represent a position one does not hold oneself. Although you keep denying this, Meg, who is a committed flat earther, immediately responded to a quote of St. Thomas saying that Aristotle's view is truth with "It does seem that St. Thomas agrees with Aristotle about the shape of the earth being spherical. "
I am not imposing an unlikely meaning on St. Thomas to make him fit my opinions. I am using the normal meanings of words. It is so obvious that even Meg, who is entirely sympathetic with the flat earth position, nevertheless understood it the way that I do.
St. Thomas makes his own views clear and is not simply representing arguments. He says that Aristotle determines the truth, while referring to arguments by others as false theories. St. Thomas is not an disinterested observer giving neutral descriptions.
-
Jayne,
you can quote yourself all you want (which is a little vain tbh) but it won't change a thing. You have consistently ignored the main point made by the author and also ALL scientific evidence concerning the flat earth. Your credibility is very low.
Flat earthers on the other hand are very open and honest. (and not communist)
READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:
"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."
So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.
You really are quote dishonest Jayne. You should examine your conscience on that point. And giving lectures to others about reading comprehension.
-
READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:
"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."
So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.
This thread is about FE. The sections immediately before 494 are:
491. Then at [349] he gives the theories about the shape of the earth. ...For some think that it is spherical, others that it is wide and having the shape of a tambourine.
492. Secondly, he presents two reasons used to support this second theory.... But he excludes this argument at [351], and says that those who present this argument do not consider the sun's distance from the earth and the greatness of the rotundity of each....
493. He gives a second argument at [352] and says that they add a further argument for the same, namely, that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.... And lest anyone believe that this explanation of the earth's rest is generally assigned by everyone, he adds that there are many different ways in which the motion and rest of the earth has been conceived, as will be plain from what will be said below.
494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, namely, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest.
So Aristotle rejected false opinions, including those mentioned in 491-493. 493 says that there are many arguments about the motion of the earth, and the one mentioned (that to be at rest it has to be flat) is not "assigned by everyone" (ie, accepted by everyone). 493 could be viewed as a transition to the following lecture, starting in 494, where false explanations for true theories are discussed. So the earth is at rest is a true theory to St. Thomas, but that it has to be flat to be at rest is a false explanation.
-
Jayne,
you can quote yourself all you want (which is a little vain tbh) but it won't change a thing. You have consistently ignored the main point made by the author and also ALL scientific evidence concerning the flat earth. Your credibility is very low.
Flat earthers on the other hand are very open and honest. (and not communist)
READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:
"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."
So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.
You really are quote dishonest Jayne. You should examine your conscience on that point. And giving lectures to others about reading comprehension.
I did not quote myself and I thoroughly addressed what you have identified as the main point made by the author. The scientific evidence concerning flat earth has nothing to do with whether St. Thomas believed and taught that the earth is a sphere. The latter is simply a matter of reading and understanding what St. Thomas wrote on the subject.
Have you read the entire section from Lecture 20 to 27? It should be easy to tell what your quote of 494 means if one has done so. These lectures together form a topical unit on the earth, covering its position, rest, and shape. Lecture 20 starts with an overview and outline of everything in the section. Then each lecture after that starts with a statement of what has already been covered and what is just about to be covered, placing it within the outline. In broad terms, lectures 20 to 25 contain false arguments, while 26 and 27 contain the truth, i.e. Aristotle's own view, although the outline breaks this down further.
You have quoted 494: "After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest." This sentence begins a new lecture. Like all the other lecture openings, it summarizes the previous material (in red) and then introduces what follows (in blue). The first part of the sentence "After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth," refers to what has come before it, which includes the argument for the earth being flat at 493 which the article's author quoted and claimed was a conclusion by St. Thomas.
Considered in the overall structure, the material in 491 to 493 covers the sub-topic of false theories about the shape of the earth. St. Thomas identifies it as discussing the shape of the earth at 491: "Then at [349] he [Aristotle] gives the theories about the shape of the earth. And first he presents the theories, and states that there are likewise problems about the shape of the earth, as there are about its motion and position. For some think that it is spherical, others that it is wide and having the shape of a tambourine."
St. Thomas himself gave us his view of the argument described in 493. He said in 491 that it concerned the shape of the earth. He said in 494 that it was a false theory. You are incorrect to claim that it concerns the earth being in motion.
You would understand this subject better if you considered the structure that St. Thomas outlined in Lecture 20 and thought about where these isolated quotes go in the overall structure. He has explicitly identified what topics are covered and which parts are false and which are true.
It is rather silly of you to keep accusing me of being dishonest every time you misunderstand something.
-
St. Thomas would not have dared to go against the flat earth. Because he knew clearly the sense of the Fathers on the issue.
St. Thomas both would and did go against those Fathers who wrote that the earth was flat. He agreed, however, with those who thought it was a sphere. Since they were not unanimous on this question, he could not agree with all of them.
This is why the 494 quote I am giving clearly refers to the question of motion. But you two in your dishonesty are assuming that it refers to the flatness of the earth.
There is nothing dishonest about understanding the unambiguous meaning of the passage. St. Thomas explicitly says the argument at 493 is an argument for the flatness of the earth and nothing in 494 negates that. If you are unable to figure out what it means even when two people have explained it to you, I suppose you will stay that way. You are not helping your case by accusing the people who actually do understand it of being dishonest.
Now if he makes reference to the sphere as truth according to Aristotle, it can be readily construed as a simple weakness at worst on St. Thomas' part. A weakness in not making himself clear.
He never said anything about about "truth according to Aristotle". St. Thomas used the word "truth" with no qualifiers on it. He obviously meant objective truth because the idea of subjective "truths" that vary according to people did not arise until hundreds of years later. St. Thomas was being perfectly clear when he said that Aristotle was determining the truth. You want to pretend there is an ambiguity there that does not exist to give yourself an excuse for denying what everyone can see.
Aristotle said the earth is a sphere. St. Thomas taught that Aristotle taught the truth about this. Therefore St. Thomas believed and taught that the earth is a sphere. There is no weakness nor lack of clarity.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant. The mountains in the video are irrelevant. These are red herrings to distract people from the truth that you want want to avoid. St. Thomas clearly believed that the earth is a sphere. It is so clear that even Meg could see it, in spite of being a flat earther.
The claims of the priest(?) writing the article were wrong and his argument poorly constructed. Your defense is also incorrect. Your frequent insults of those who point out the truth to you are ad hominem arguments that draw attention to your lack of logic.
-
.
How many ways can someone keep getting it wrong, even when his mistakes are described in detail, he keeps on making the same mistakes!
.
Some students are like that in school, they're called dropouts.
-
.
Six pages going round and round about what a so-called priest supposedly had to say about the earth being "flat," but nowhere does this so-called priest identify himself.
.
If he really were a priest, he would identify himself, since priests don't usually publish anonymous writings from "a priest" without a name.
.
He could use a pen name, but this one uses no name at all. So he must not be a priest at all.
.
More fakery from the flat-earthdom syndromers!
-
.
His so-called majesty demonstrates inability to think while hurling ad-hominems, presumption, falsehoods, doublespeak and sloppiness!
.
.
But Jayne ignores all that because she is scared of her husband (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629792/#msg629792). --- Ad hominem attack.
.
Most people (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629894/#msg629894) have switched off at this point, but for those who are still reading... --- Presuming to know what people are doing.
.
this priest (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629895/#msg629895) has read the ENTIRE docuмent --- Presumes, again, that a source is a priest, without any proof whatsoever, nor any name.
.
It's called playing devils (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg629896/#msg629896) advocate. --- Yet another sloppy omission of the possessive apostrophe!
.
You would know this if you took the time to read (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630009/#msg630009) other writings of St. Thomas. --- Pretends to know what others have done or studied.
.
To repeat (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630091/#msg630091) myself, --- Redundancy personified! But at least willing to admit it!
.
Not sure if you could sound any more smug and condescending (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630092/#msg630092). --- Thinks he has a monopoly on being smug and condescending!
.
It is clear he is only representing Aristotles (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110) argument. --- Yet another sloppy omission of the possessive apostrophe!
You are trying to make things fit with your false thesis that everybody agreed with the sphere heresy (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110) in the middle ages.--- "heresy?"
.
Jayne my dear (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110), I could do this all day (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630110/#msg630110)... --- Demonstrating the inability to think!
.
Jayne, the person with reading difficulties (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630174/#msg630174) is you. --- The person with reading difficulties tries to accuse others of this problem!
.
I think you are getting nervous because you see flat earth is taking off (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630174/#msg630174) despite your arrogant resistance of it. --- Taking off? Where?
.
you consistently ignore challenging arguments made to you by flat earthers (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630213/#msg630213)? --- Flat-earthers can't make challenging arguments.
.
You have barely tried to respond to the flat earth arguments (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630236/#msg630236). --- Flat-earthdom syndromers don't have any arguments.
.
You have consistently ignored ... ALL scientific evidence (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630282/#msg630282) concerning the flat earth. --- There isn't any scientific evidence of flat-earth!
.
You really are quote dishonest (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-priest-responds-to-tradidi-claims-over-st-thomas/msg630282/#msg630282) Jayne. --- Can't manage to spell false accusations correctly.
.
--- And other posts that are frankly scandalous which have been deleted by the Moderator!
-
.
Fearful that he might get too emotional, let conspicuous typos get through, and break forum rules in his dithering platitudes, his so-called majesty is now afraid to post. Pathetic.