Flat Earth, was it an infallible teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II said (which is relevent for both “flat earth” theories and geocentrism):

[T]he sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and . . . the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele. . . . Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the center of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. . . . In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.18 (This is quoted from a Gary Hoge article.)

Pope Leo XIII himself tells us how we should interpret those passages of Scripture that describe the physical universe. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of Providentissimus Deus, the Pope specifically discussed the relationship between Scripture and the physical sciences The Pope wrote:

We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.9 (from the same Gary Hoge article)​
About the earth being flat, the original article that I posted stated that the Church knew the earth was “round”. I suppose we have many “historians” who have rewritten Church history and have convinced many that the Church actually taught that the earth was flat. Just about every article that I found in researching this were from Protestant sites stating as fact that the Church taught that the earth was flat. :nope:
 
40.png
Eden:
About the earth being flat, the original article that I posted stated that the Church knew the earth was “round”. I suppose we have many “historians” who have rewritten Church history and have convinced many that the Church actually taught that the earth was flat. Just about every article that I found in researching this were from Protestant sites stating as fact that the Church taught that the earth was flat. :nope:
Click to expand...
The Church has never taught a flat earth. This certainly looks like it came from a Protestant source, I agree. They have a penchant for twisting truths and outright lies when it comes to their thinking of the Church. Incidentally, scripture, in the Book of Job describes the earth as a circle (or orb) hung on nothing at all.
 
40.png
Holly3278:
The Church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Was that an infallible teaching? If so, it obviously presents a major problem.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote an excellent book (Inventing the Flat Earth) debunking the claim that Christians used to think the earth was flat. (Compare with Boorstin’s The Discoverers, which perpetuates the claim.) According to Russell, the idea that people used to think the earth was flat was invented in the early 19th century by two people: a French writer with antireligious prejudices and (drumroll!) Washington Irving (yes, he of Sleepy Hollow and Rip van Winkle), in his life of Columbus.

Edwin
 
There is a Flat Earth Society in England, but I seem to have mislaid their address. :whistle:
 
40.png
Liberian:
Sorry, I was being colloquial. Can you give me a specific quote in a papal encyclical, council decree, or other church document that teaches this? By “chapter and verse” I meant “a specific reference.” Sorry to be confusing.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Sorry but I can’t. :o
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberian
*Sorry, I was being colloquial. Can you give me a specific quote in a papal encyclical, council decree, or other church document that teaches this? By “chapter and verse” I meant “a specific reference.” Sorry to be confusing.
  • Liberian*
40.png
Holly3278:
Sorry but I can’t. :o
Click to expand...
Holly,

OK, I’ll put that one down as another red herring that “Someone (I don’t mean you–probably somebody asked you about it) said that the Church used to teach that the earth is flat.” There are a lot of these supposedly true statements that evaporate when you look closely at them.
  • Liberian
who wishes that the so-called “skeptics” would be a bit more skeptical about their skepticism
 
40.png
Holly3278:
The Church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Was that an infallible teaching? If so, it obviously presents a major problem.
Click to expand...
When did the Church teach the earth was flat? The types of Astronomy in use in ancient times, those of Ptolemy and Aristotle, held to a spherical earth. 200 years before Christ Eratosthenes measured the Earths circumference. So WHEN (and cite the source)did the Church teach as a matter of Doctrine that the earth was flat??
 
Chris Jacobsen:
It was known that the earth was a sphere several centuries before there was a Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, as Chris points out, it was well known that the earth was spherical for many centuries. Columbus was mistaken about the size of the sphere. He thought it was much smaller. If the American continent had not been in the way, his entire crew would surely have died at sea.
 
40.png
Holly3278:
The Church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Was that an infallible teaching? If so, it obviously presents a major problem.
Click to expand...
The Church never taught that the earth was flat. In fact, there is an ancient icon of Mary holding the Christ Child, from the 4th Century I think, and in His hand He holds a globe representing the world.
 
40.png
Ignatius:
The Church never taught that the earth was flat. In fact, there is an ancient icon of Mary holding the Christ Child, from the 4th Century I think, and in His hand He holds a globe representing the world.
Click to expand...
Well that’s really neat! If you find this pic, please post it. Thanks!
 
The globus cruciger was a widely used symbol of a monarch’s rule over Christendom and I believe the Crown Jewels of England still contains one. It was a sphere with a cross atop it to symbolize dominion over Christendom. These were used by European monarchs from the 5th century on, so obviously they were representing the world as spherical in shape from the beginnings of the Church on.
 
I remember Aquinas, somewhere in the Summa (sorry, can’t recall exactly where) stating words to the effect that “since we know the earth is round”—and citing some Greek mathematician as his source—that was in the 13th century, so clearly the idea that the Church taught that the earth is flat is ludicrous.

An atheist forum that I sometimes go to has a quote on their bannerhead, supposedly from Ferdinand Magellan, saying something like “the Church says that the earth is flat, but shadows indicate otherwise. I trust shadows, not the Church”—some such thing. Anyway, I wonder if Ferdinand actually said that, or of this quote was conveniently invented during the so-called “Enlightenment”.
 
40.png
Eden:
Here’s an article about geocentrism and the Church: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

Here are some excerpts:

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church’s Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn’t it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal’s admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo’s scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.

This was Galileo’s dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo’s works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.

Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo’s request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope’s personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.

Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised. (please see article for more)

When did the Church take an official position on this, I wonder? The article says at the time of the Galileo controversy the Church did not have an official position.
Click to expand...
This article is not correct. The Church clearly condemned the works of Corpenicus and Galileo and his works. The Church and St. Bellarmine were very clear that the notion that the earth moves and the sun does not is contrary to scripture. Three Popes condemned these notions, including a Papal Bull by Alexander the VII. I am sorry, but this article is one of centuries of attempts to backpedal on the condemnation by those “moderns” too “embarrassed” by the “mistake” of believing the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the condemnation of three Popes, and basically the stamp of the Holy Spirit against all powerful science.

If it were indeed true that science has proven that the earth moves, for instance, then perhaps we would have an issue. But to date NO ONE has so proven. Yet many still choose to side with science on a strictly philosophical question. Why not at least be open to the Church´s position? Think about it.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
This article is not correct. The Church clearly condemned the works of Corpenicus and Galileo and his works. The Church and St. Bellarmine were very clear that the notion that the earth moves and the sun does not is contrary to scripture. Three Popes condemned these notions, including a Papal Bull by Alexander the VII. I am sorry, but this article is one of centuries of attempts to backpedal on the condemnation by those “moderns” too “embarrassed” by the “mistake” of believing the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the condemnation of three Popes, and basically the stamp of the Holy Spirit against all powerful science.

If it were indeed true that science has proven that the earth moves, for instance, then perhaps we would have an issue. But to date NO ONE has so proven. Yet many still choose to side with science on a strictly philosophical question. Why not at least be open to the Church´s position? Think about it.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
trth_skr (and others),

What we have again here is a question of coordinate systems. Michelson and Morley in the late 1800’s demonstrated (not proved, but demonstrated) that there is no such thing as absolute motion in the universe, no “background stuff” against which we can measure our absolute velocity. The difference between the geocentric theory and what science teaches as standard is a change of coordinates. Modern mainstream cosmology does not use a geocentric coordinate system because in that coordinate system the equations of motion get a lot more complicated. But you cannot say from scientific observations that “the earth stands still” or “the earth moves.” The equations that result from a moving earth are a lot simpler than those from a stationary earth, and so most scientists will go with the simpler theory. But geocentricism cannot be disproven any more than it can be proven. As such, it is not an independent scientific theory.
  • Liberian
 
I find it funny that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t even know it’s own holy scripture.

The Bible declared the earth was round long before there was a “Modern Science” or The Church!(Holy Roman type).

Isa 40:22 “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”

The Bible has always remained true, it is man’s own interpretation or rather the lack of proper interpretive procedures that are flawed!
 
40.png
Chazemataz:
I find it funny that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t even know it’s own holy scripture.

The Bible declared the earth was round long before there was a “Modern Science” or The Church!(Holy Roman type).

Isa 40:22 “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”

The Bible has always remained true, it is man’s own interpretation or rather the lack of proper interpretive procedures that are flawed!
Click to expand...
Funny that you haven’t been paying attention.

The Church has NEVER SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT.
 
It doesn’t really matter what the Church fathers believed in terms of Science. They aren’t science and their speciality certainly isn’t science. We are concerned about what the Church fathers believed when it comes to Christian truth because they are the closest we get to apostolic teaching. Their opinion on free will and baptismal regeneration is far more important.
 
40.png
Holly3278:
The Church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Was that an infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
No, it didn’t, and no it wasn’t.

The controversy was about whether the earth or the sun was the center of the universe - turns out both sides where wrong.

And the church never “defined” a scientific theory infallibly - outside the scope and mission Christ gave the Church.

Check out these articles on Fath and Science from Catholic Answers for more on this topic.

DustinsDad

PS: The theory of a “flat earth” was not so widely believed as modern folks think. It’s kind of a retro-active American rewriting of human history, makes the Christopher Colombus story more exciting I guess.

PPS: Are you trolling?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top