Antipope Innocent II

Good to see you finally starting to do some basic homework on the issue - keep it up. And what Bellarmine writes is perfectly correct - all the "authorities" agreed that Biblical references to the movement of sun and the fixed position of the Earth were to be taken literally because they were thought to be confirmed by (Ptolemaic-based) science and observation. No arguments there.

Now, can you find a similar medieval or Sixteenth Century reference that says the same thing about Biblical references to the Earth being flat? You've been asked for a reference of this kind for about four pages now and you keep failing to come up with anything.

Have you worked out why yet? I wonder when it will finally dawn on you.

On Augustine the evidence is ambiguous. But yes, those other pre-Medieval and non-Western writers of the earlier centuries of Christianity did propose a flat Earth. What's missing from your list - and from your posts generally - are any Medieval and Western flat-earthers.

Why is that?

Given that you're strenuously trying to prove that not only did such Western and Medieval flat-earthers exist but that they dominated Western thought to the extent that the Church upheld a Ptolemaic System with a flat rather than round Earth at its centre, it's rather weird that you can't actually produce any of these flat-earthers or cite or quote any of their writings.

Why is that?

You also STILL haven't explained how Martianus Capella, Bede, John Scottus Eriugena, Raban Maur, Giles of Rome, Roger Bacon, John Sacrobosco, Jean Buridan and Nicolas Oresme all taught that the universe was centred on a spherical Earth without censure. If the Ptolemaic System upheld by the Church in the Sixteenth Century was centred, as you keep asserting, on a flat Earth, how did all these eminent men escape the stake? How did one of them get made a saint? You've been asked to do so twice now and failed to.

Why is that?

I think any objective person can see why you're desperately dodging all these points and chasing your tail with some out-of-context material that you clearly don't even understand.

Put up or shut up time, methinks - either address these points above or put your posts on this thread out of their misery.

Roger Pearse

This is correct. The term 'heresy' does have a definite meaning and context, and applies only to matters of Christian belief. The early Christians had no dogmatic position on matters of scientific and medical interest, on which a range of positions were possible. Cosmas did indeed try to suggest that only his view was endorsed by the bible, but, judging from his later chapters, his fellow monks made rude noises at him when he suggested it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Now that is a most interesting article on how scientific information flowed between west and east and back again, albeit summarising secondary literature. All credit to Sauron for finding it.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/upload...ld_Europe1.pdf

In fact I feel that I must recommend it. It doesn't seem to be just Moslem propaganda, which I feared it might be. It acknowledges rightly that almost all Greek science flowed through the Syriac-speaking world, and the work of Hunain Ibn Ishaq. It mentions Severus Sebokht's work on the astrolabe. It mentions Moslem attempts to keep scientific texts out of Christian hands in Spain, and the persecution of Christians by Moslems. In short where I know something about what's being said, it's correct, and gives a fair picture. (I've not read it quite through, tho).

I certainly didn't know that Arab texts were translated into Greek in Constantinople.

I think that to say that *no* Arabic texts were translated into Latin as a result of the crusades is over-hasty, so can be quibbled. The only example given is of Stephen of Antioch translating an Arabic work into Latin, which had previously be translated in Sicily. I don't know anything about this Stephen -- anyone?

The source given is:

C. Burnett, "The transmission of Arabic Astronomy via Antioch and Pisa in the second quarter of the 12th century", in J. P. Hogendijk and A. I. Sabra (eds), The enterprise of science in Islam Cambridge:MIT (2003), pp. 23-51.

Anyone care to obtain this and precis it for us?

The point is that such a flow isn't a serious source, and correctly; most come via Spain.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Antipope Innocent II

I think I said "zero" in my previous post, which was wrong and was over-stating my case. "Very few" would have been far more accurate.

WishboneDawn

You've applied the thinking of a protestant movement that didn't appear until 350 years after the trial to that sentence. There's nothing in it that implies modern literalism and it's entirely consistent with a church that views the revealed truths of scripture as something different from a literal belief.

There's nothing here that hints at literalism either. In fact, both quotes mention philosophy. Hint.

Did you miss that both your quotes specifically mention that Galileo's idea was, ''absurd and false philosophically''? I guess if you're stubbornly clinging to modern frames of reference then that might not mean much but if you make an effort to understand the context of the times then it becomes important. The philosophy that Galileo's idea would offend is Natural Philosophy. Most Natural Philosophers would have held that Galileo's idea was laughable, illogical and inconsistent with what was known and could be observed.


You're shifting here. You're making a claim that depends on a very modern (and protestant no less!) reading of scripture. Viewing history through modern frames is not the default position of people who seriously study history. If you want to assert that that's how the medieval (or Renaissance, we're more into that territory with galileo)Church read scripture, show that. Please feel free to venture outside the trial of Galileo.

Jehanne

Roger,

This is simply not true. The early and later Medieval church did make at least one "scientific pronouncement"; that is, that all of humanity are descended from two people, Adam & Eve, which the Church took literally through the reign of Pope Pius XII and which is still taught in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Of course, modern genetic evidence has falsified that hypothesis -- the human race is not descended from two people; rather, we all share common ancestor with a paternal grandfather and a maternal grandmother, both of whom were separated in time and space by 76,000 years. In any case, we are not the progeny of two people!

Jehanne

No, but the Medieval Church saw the Magisterium as being infallible on all matters of faith; that is, the Pope and the bishops who were in communion with him could not err on questions of faith and doctrine. This idea was, itself, declared "dogma." (It is now a defunct footnote in Denzinger's.) After Galileo, the Church, of course, realized this was not the case, which is why Pope Pius IX called the First Vatican Council, which came-up with the idea of Papal Infallibility, which, contrary to the Medieval view, says that the Pope and/or bishops can err, but not when the former is "speaking from the chair." And, yes, people even today believe in this crap!

aa5874

Can any one show me or make reference to the trial, condemnation or censure of Lactantius, St John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Didorus of Tarsus, Severian, Cyril of Jerusalem or Cosmas?

All those persons were anti-Ptolemaic, and are on record as stating the earth is flat or that the spherical earth is fiction. Now if the Church was pro-Ptolemaic, as stated by some, where is the official record condemning or censuring of these Saints, Bishops and writers.

I cannot find a trial, condemnation or censure for Severian, Bishop of Gabala but he was anti-Ptolemaic. It is recorded that he wrote.."The earth is flat and the Sun does not pass under it during the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall."

Now, this anti-Ptolemaic, this statement has to be contrary to sacred and divine scriptures, yet the Papal authorities did nothing as recorded.

I can find no trial, condemnation or censure for Lactatius who was anti-Ptolemaic and regarded the spherical earth as fiction. He is recorded to have written, ...."But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel....
...I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, once they have erred, consistently preserve in their folly and defend one vain thing by another."

This is anti-Ptolemaic, contrary to scripture as some say, but we have no trial, condemnation or censure recorded.

I find no trial, condemnation or censure for St. Augustine, he was anti-Ptolemaic. He is recorded to have said, ..."But as to the fable there are anti-podes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible.

I find no trial, condemnation or censure for Cosmas, he too, is recorded as being anti-Ptolemaic and wrote...'It is written: In the begining God made the heaven and earth. We therefore first depict, along with the earth the heaven which is vaulted and which has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth..."

Cosmas is anti-Ptolemaic and used sacred and divine scriptures to confirm his flat earth, yet I cannot find a trial, condemnation or censure recorded.

It would appear to me that the Papal authorities maintained the anti-Polemaic position, using scripture which culminated in the trial, condemnation and censure of Galileo in the 17th century.

Where are the records of the trials, condemnations and censure of the anti-Ptolemaics, Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, Severian, Diodorus of Tarsus and Cosmas?

Jehanne

They weren't condemned. Instead, some were canonized Saints of the Church. Clearly, the early Church authorities after Constantine had no problem with the idea of a flat-earth!

The Church's theologians, her intellectuals, became pro-Ptolemaic over time.

True. If the Pope and/or another bishop had objected to his statement, he would have been excommunicated, censored, etc. If people thought that it was such a big deal, a Church council would have been convened to excommunicate and/or depose him. The point is that the churchmen living at that time did not have a problem with what he had said.

Either they believed that the World was flat or they believed that it was a matter of theological opinion to hold to the idea of the earth being flat.

This is a prima facie observation. Lactatius was condemned as being a heretic, by a church council, but not for teaching that the World was flat!!

Cosmas had a bishop, and if his bishop was unhappy with what he was saying, he would have censured and/or condemned him for saying it! Just consider the case of Hypatia of Alexandria. The early Church did not like heretics, or pagan philosophers, unless the latter were already dead.

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon

For information concerning the specific works banned by the Church, you can go to http://tinyurl.com/2o2uyr. and read a section from the Foundations of Modern Science by Edward Grant on the banning of Aristotle.

I have seen this ban mentioned in half a dozen books I have read on Medieval Philosophy.

According to Maria Rosa Menocal in The Ornament of the World, the formal ban on Aristotle's Metaphysics and other natural treatises on natural science came in 1215.
(http://tinyurl.com/24mhfq)

I do not know if anybody was actually excommunicated or subsequently burned at the stake for reading Aristotle. I know that thousands of others who were excommunicated did suffer the death penalty afterwards.

As I understand it, it was illegal to not belong to the Catholic Church in France and many other European countries at this time and once excommunicated, one could be subject to the death penalty from civil authorities.

As far as Church officials/scholars and their various attitudes towards natural philosophy (the equivalent of "science" today) any book on medieval philosophy will tell you the names of those who argued for its teaching and those who argued against it.

It is an easy enough exercise. If I had a spare hour, I would do it, but unfortunately, I do not.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=GakuseiDon;4736628]


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
For example, if you were caught reading certain books by Aristotle circa 1200, you could be excommunicated, tortured and burnt at the stake.

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

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

Such as who?