Jehanne

Consider what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a "believing" organization, has to say on the subject:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm

In particular,

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ge...sis1.htm#foot2

which states,

[2] The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.

Antipope Innocent II

Riiight. So it was "alive and kicking" despite being advocated by "no-one". The logic here is obscure to say the least.

It "survived", despite being advocated by "no-one". Why am I getting the weird feeling that next you'll be explaining that "black" is in fact "white"?

This thread is about what was taught and believed. Though, as I've also shown, the more uncertain evidence about what was popularly believed also indicates that the idea the Earth was round was actually widespread. What we have not seen in this loooong thread is ANY evidence that ANYONE in medieval Europe thought the Earth was flat.

Despite this, you still maintain that this idea, for which there is zero evidence, was "alive and kicking". :huh:

Because (i) it wasn't heretical to say it was flat, even though it was known to be scientifically wrong and (ii) more importantly, no-one was saying it was flat. Why would you expect censorship, torture etc for an idea that firstly wasnt' heretical and secondly wasn't even being propogated?

Because it wasn't heretical. It also wasn't heretical to say barnacle geese grew from barnacles on rocks, even though that was as scientifically wrong as saying the Earth was flat. You don't find any condemnation about that idea in Denzinger either. Or any number of other scientifically-wrong ideas.

He was just disagreed with because he was wrong.

Though on that point he was considered wrong. He was regarded as a doctor of the Chuch, not a "natural philosopher"/scientist.

And yet you can't give me a single example of anyone who held this belief in the Middle Ages because ... ? :huh:

Get back to me when you can answer that question.

I'm getting that impression. When you find yourself arguing which someone who thinks saying an idea was "alive and kicking" despite having zero proponents makes any kind of sense you begin to suspect you're in some kind of absurdist theatre.

And it is obvious to everyone (though not, it seems, to you) that if this were true you would have been able to produce an example of one of these Sixteenth Century flat, drum-shaped, bowl-shaped, hollow, cylindrical, or conical theorists the last THREE times I asked you to do so. Yet you keep failing to. How odd.

It should be becoming obvious to you that (i) you can't produce these theorists because they don't exist and therefore (ii) your reading of that passage in Copernicus is a wild misinterpretation.

We'll see how long it takes before that dawns on you. I have a horrible feeliing we'll be here for a while.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it is still utter nonsense. The Ptolemaic System upheld by the Church in Copernicus' time and since before the Medieval Period involved a series of concentric, revolving SPHERES centred on the unmoving SPHERE of the Earth. It doesn't matter how many times you wave your hands around and shreik that it involved an unmoving flat Earth that's ... just ... wrong.

Wrong. They rejected a spherical Earth that moved and accepted a spherical Earth that didn't. Every single work of medieval cosmology or astronomy or geography talked about how the Earth was a sphere at the centre of a collection of concentric heavenly spheres. They argued that this was because the sphere was the perfect geometrical figure. They said it was because the Earth was at the centre of the (spherical) universe and all things centred on its centre of gravity. They argued that certain clearly observable phenomena only made sense if the Earth was a sphere. They ALL argue or simply state as fact that the Earth was a sphere at the centre of a series of other spheres. Martianus Capella, Bede, John Scottus Eriugena, Raban Maur, Giles of Rome, Roger Bacon, John Sacrobosco, Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme - all through the Middle Ages the same story: "the Earth is a SPHERE at the centre of a series of SPHERES.

I can cite and quote all these people if you like, and more besides. Over and over again we see medieval writers on cosmology or astronomy or geography talking about the Earth as a sphere. We have treatises on the operation of the astrolabe which just assume their readers know the Earth is a sphere. We've got Brytfyrth's Manual of instruction of young monks referring to the Earth being round "like an apple".

What we don't have (and what you, therefore, have failed to produce) is ANYONE saying the Earth was flat. NO-ONE. Got it? NO-ONE.

Yes, if you read it with the totally erroneous idea that the Ptolomaic System was "the flat earth system" you will misinterpret Copernicus' work in that rather comical way. That tends to happen when you read something without understanding its context. You've also managed to completely misinterpret this passage:

In other words Copernicus is saying "Some people who may be learned in other respects but don't understand astronomy will probably say I'm wrong. But just as we all now know Lactantius was wrong about the Earth being flat, so these modern babblers will prove to be wrong about me."

That's a gloriously wrong and total misreading of what Copernicus says. But if that were to be the case, then you should have no trouble at all producing an example of one of these people. Produce one. Now, please.

Or perhaps you should just stop digging and climb out of that hole while you still can.

aa5874

I'll give the whole congregation.

His Holiness, the Theological Qualifiers and the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition.

Antipope Innocent II

Terrific. Now, can you quote any of these eminent gentlemen talking about the Earth being flat? In fact, can you quote anyone from that period talking about the Earth being flat?

When you realise you can't, you might want to explain why not. Just about everyone else reading this thread has already worked out why you can't, but it's getting amusing to see just how long it's going to take for it to dawn on you.

Quotes please. If the passages from Copernicus mean what you claim they mean, you should have no trouble at all finding these quotes from the Pope etc.

Over to you. Make it good.

Jehanne

Again, most people (over 90%) who lived during the Middle Ages were illiterate, so their views are largely lost to us. I guess that your challenge would be satisfied by finding a single late Medieval theologian, bishop, and/or priest who held to the idea of a flat-earth without censure. Cosmas, as has been mentioned already, was not censored for his views during his lifetime by any of the Church authorities in the Eastern Church, who, by the way, were very vigilant toward heresy and heretics.

GakuseiDon

Has a flat-earth ever been regarded as heresy? It's not regarded as heresy today AFAIK. Should that indicate that the church secretly supports a flat-earth today?

Antipope Innocent II

Their views are largely lost to us. Where we have evidence about what they believed about the shape of the Earth, however, it indicates they knew it was round. When you have a sermon in a collection for parish priests, a popular collection of travellers tales, a knightly romance and a book to help the instructors of young novice monks all referring, in passing, to the Earth being round without bothering to stop and explain how or why, it's pretty clear the idea was well-known. Ditto for the fact that the symbol of Earthly power in medieval iconography was an orb rather than a disc.


The challenge to "aa5874" is to explain why he thinks medieval Ptolemaic cosmology was centred on a flat Earth when anyone who is actually familiar with medieval works of geography, astronomy or cosmology (as he clearly isn't) knows it was centred on a sphere - the orb of the round Earth. If he wants to prove this remarkable reassessment of all academic writing on the subject he needs to produce some Sixteenth Century flat earthers that, somehow, every historian of science of the last 200 years has missed. Then he needs to produce some quotes from the Pope and/or the College of Cardinals from Copernicus' time that proves his wild and unsubstantiated that they too were flat-earthers.

If his next post manages to achieve all these marvels, he deserves a Nobel Prize. But I suspect it will just be more baseless but strident assertions and desperate hand-waving.


Cosmas is totally irrelevant, since he was unknown in the West. He wasn't "censured" for "heresy" because, as I've patiently explained to you about five times now, his work wasn't heretical, it was just scientifically wrong. And he was criticised for being scientifically wrong in his lifetime, as I've patiently explained to you twice now, by John Philoponus.

So, yet again, you and "aa5874" have utterly failed to come up with any flat-earthers known in or from western Europe in the Middle Ages. Surely you're starting to get the tiniest inkling that you've nailed your colours to the mast of a rapidly sinking ship?

A simple "Okay, it looks like I was wrong" right about now would restore a lot of your lost credibility.

Jehanne

No, of course not! These are the points which I have been trying to make:

1) The early Hebrews through the time of Paul and the Gospel writers believed in a flat-earth.

2) The belief in a flat-earth was common to first-century Christianity and survived into the pre-Nicene and Nicene fathers and the early Roman Catholic Church.

3) In the 6th-century, things began to change and the idea of an immovable spherical Earth began to enter, slowly, into Christian theological circles.

4) The idea of a flat-earth survived among the pagans and the other illiterate masses well into the Middle Ages.

aa5874

The Medieval Chuch taught the Scriptures. The teachings of Scriptures are contrary to the findings of Copernicus and Galileo.

From the Holy Congregation, ..."We say and pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters advanced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, and having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures.....

To find out about the teachings of the Scriptures, you go to Genesis 1.6-10, 'And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament and it was so.

8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9. And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, And let the dry land appear, and ir was so.

10. And God call the Dry Land, EARTH, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas, and God saw it was good."

The flat Earth according to the sacred and divine Scriptures.

GakuseiDon

Then I don't know what your point is about the church being "very vigilant toward heresy and heretics" in relationship to a flat earth. Neither a flat earth nor a spherical earth ever seemed to have been part of doctrine or heresy. Augustine appears to accept a spherical earth, even if reluctantly, without making it a point of doctrine. If a flat-earth were a point of doctrine, wouldn't Augustine have been more condemning of the idea of a spherical earth, given the stated vigilance against heresy?

I'm interested in early cosmology myself, so any sources you have to support your statement that "the belief in a flat-earth was common to first-century Christianity" would be appreciated. Especially on how you single out Paul, the Gospel writers and first-century Christianity as holding this belief.