aa5874

You forgot to memtion the the Scriptures. The Medieval Church taught that Genesis 1 was true.

Jehanne

To pick-up on other's points, find me one historian who says that the New Testament writers believed in a spherical earth.

Jehanne

The theologians of the high Middle Ages, clearly, taught and believed in a spherical Earth, just as today all theologians reject a six-day literal creation. However, this does not mean that the Magisterium of the Church, which is the Pope and the bishops of the church who are communion with him, consider a six-day creation belief to be heterodoxy. No historian of any stripe can point to the writings of a Pope and/or church council during the Middle Ages on the question of a flat-earth versus a spherical one. Clearly, the geometry of the Earth was a theological opinion, that is, the Church regarded both views, that of a flat-earth and that of a spherical earth as being orthodox. Some of the pre-Nicene fathers held to the former, while the scholastics held to the latter.

aa5874

Can you give me a source to back up your assertions. You are just making uncorroborated statements.

In the trial itself, the Papal authorities claimed that Galileo's hypotheses violated the sacred and divine scriptures. These are the facts. There is nothing complicated about that.

From the trial of Galileo:

The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false and philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, also with a diurnal motion is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

These statements from the Church show without doubt the literalist fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.. During the condmnation, the Papal authorities made no mention of any other hypotheses from any other astronomer that contradicted Galileo, the main document that contradicted Galileo was the sacred and divine scriptures.

Until you can present information to show that the Papal authorities did rely on astronomical findings from other astronomers to condemn Galileo, you are just making wild assertions.

Chili

That may have been a theological opinion but not necessarily believed by the theologians. The flat earth is a metaphor just as the 6 day creation is a metaphor or the seventh day on which evening did not follow the day will have lost its charm.

From their point of view the earth is flat, six day creation is true and the transubstantiation is true. They are true indeed and can be explained in the context that they were written but not to be comprehended by the believer who therefore must accept them by faith at least for now. The aim of the Church here is that such indoctrianted values create doubt and so become the antagonist seeking understanding in the mind of the believer.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jehanne,

You make a good point about the duality of the Medieval Church. Like all institutions, over a thousand year period, it is bound to express a number of different opinions on one subject.

For example, if you were caught reading certain books by Aristotle circa 1200, you could be excommunicated, tortured and burnt at the stake. Soon, however, by 1275, you could be excommunicated for opposing the ideas in some of these same books.

It seems apparent that most early Church Fathers who pronounced on the subject before 600 believed in a flat Earth. There were few pronouncements between 600-1000, but after 1000, virtually all pronouncements seem to have been in favor of a spherical Earth.

One can find evidence of Church scholars/officials who supported scientific thought and evidence of Church scholars/officials who repressed and persecuted such thought.

It does seem likely that the Church by promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible did help to revive and maintain the idea that the Earth was flat. It is also almost certain that the Church did accept and maintain a Ptolemaic view of the universe with a spherical Earth and helped to popularize this idea in the later Middle Ages, at least among the intelligencia.




Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

GakuseiDon

I know very little about the Medieval Church, but did the Church ever promote a literal interpretation of the Bible? I know some individuals did, and the book as a whole was regarded as inspired by God, but was a literal interpretation official doctrine at any point? (If so, I would have expected much more debate about the shape of the earth based on Genesis.)

Antipope Innocent II

Oh, the irony!

Because it did. And up to that point it was considered those Scriptures - especially Joshua 10:12, where the sun supposedly stops in the sky - fitted with scientific observation and the Ptolemaic system and so should be interpreted literally. Other Scriptures which did not accord with observation and science - such as references to the Earth having "corners" - were interpreted figuratively. Medieval exegesis actually involved no less than four possible ways that Scripture could be read: allegorical, literal, moral, and anagogical. A passage could have one of these meanings, several of them or all of them (so anyone working on the simplistic assumption that medieval interpretations of Scripture were always merely literal is automatically going to be totally wrong).

He is not making "wild assertions". Anyone who has done even the most elementary reading on the case knows that the whole problem was that Galileo insisted that the "double motion" of the sun was a fact, whereas it was not proven for another 150 years after his trial. That's why his condemnation said his thesis was "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical". "Philosophy" here means what we call "science". So they were saying it was scientifically wrong and heretical. If you aren't aware that science was as much a part of the problems they had with Galileo as Scripture then it's you who needs to go do some basic homework on the matter. Why should we do it for you? And look up "Ptolemaic System" while you're at it.

Really? What works were these and who was burnt for reading them?

Such as who?

Literalists like Tertullian and those dabbling in science like John Chrysostom or Cosmas did try to present a purely Biblically-based cosmology. But they lost the debate regarding the relation between scientific knowledge and Biblical interpretation, which is why we see the "flat Earth" idea disappear and get replaced by the Ptolemaic System.

No. See above regarding the allegorical, literal, moral, and anagogical levels of Biblical exegesis in the period. Anyone who claims their interpretation was purely and simply literal clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

Chili

I think that literalism is typically protestant and when that began the world first proved itself to be flat.

aa5874

I found a letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini making reference to literal interpretation of Scripture with regard to the Sun and the Earth, as found in the Scriptures, in April 4, 1615.

"....Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua, you will discover that ALL agree in interpreting them Literally as teaching the Sun is in the Heavens and revolves around the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the Sun, at the center of the universe and Motionless..."


See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ellarmine.html

Now, it is documented that Lactantius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Diodorus of Tarsus, Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Augustine all rejected the Ptolemaic view, and clearly propagated that the earth is flat using scripture.

I do not see any record to show that the Church promoted the Ptolemaic geo-centric system, stating in clear terms, that the Ptolemy system is not contrary to scriptures?

As far as I see, the Church primarily supported the sacred and divine Sciptures over any other hypotheses.