Could you please produce the actual quote of these "more details" rather than your interpretation of them. 

Crux of it was right there in your quote ... which you misinterpreted due to your agenda.  I cited ir in my thread criticizing Sungenis' book.

AD White tried to make the Fathers look stupid but the quotes themselves are gold. 

Yeah, that's a common tactic, assume the earth is a globe and only idiots believe it's flat, and then use that begged question as an attack mechanism.

Well, you won that argument.  Not that any of us disagreed with you about the shameful number of people who believed and still believe the false Pythagorean Doctrine of a whirling globe earth.

The Ptolemaic/Aristotelean model that dominated Catholic history had a stationary (not whirling) globe earth.  The idea of a moving earth developed much later. 

Anyhow, your claim that there were "multitudes" of Catholics opposing globe earth depended on quotes that were actually about heliocentrism.  Once we exclude these, we are left with a handful of Church Fathers and (the entirely non-authoritative) Cosmas. 

The only good thing about Andrew Dickson White is that he provided quotes and citations of the Fathers of the Church against the globe model condemned by three Popes. AD White tried to make the Fathers look stupid but the quotes themselves are gold. 

 I suspect that your reliance on White is resposible for your misunderstanding concerning how widespread belief in flat earth was.  I have never seen a good argument that it was unanimous or even near unanimous even in the Patristic period and it had basically disappeared after that.

It’s debatable in what manner the use of ‘globe’ was used (ball earth vs snow globe), which you repeatedly and obnoxiously fail to admit.  You have an agenda. 

I explicitly acknowledged this in post #130 of this thread. Apparently people have run out of logical arguments and have moved on to making up things about my supposed "agenda".

And his point was ... so what?  That was probably true in the West due to the revival of Aristotle after the scholastic era.  And?

Apart from where the Church Fathers are interpreting Sacred Scripture, it means nothing.  Most "learned men" today believe that the earth moves.  Most "learned men" for a couple centuries believed that the sun was the center of universe ... and that it was stationary.  No "learned men" today believe this anymore.  Most "learned men" at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine believed that the earth was stationary and that the sun moved around it.  Not only that, but the CHURCH condemned heliocentrism as heretical.  Very few "learned men" still believe this today.  I am reminded of a statement made by one of the Church Fathers about how there's a new scientific theory that pops up every couple years, only to be discredited shortly later and replaced by another.

Really, the only "learned men" that matter here are 1) the Church and 2) the Church Fathers when unanimously interpreting Sacred Scripture.  Outside of matters related to the faith, mainstream "science" has been something of a joke throughout history.

These posts below, from the start of this thread, are the reason why the point was being forwarded:


Quote from Quo Vadis Domine:

Sorry, but the real indoctrination from the film was the push of the false idea that in the middle ages it was commonly believed that the Earth was flat. This was a falsehood perpetrated by Washington Irving in his embellished life of Christopher Columbus. BTW: His biography of Columbus also highlights his prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Quote from Tradman:

That's funny, I constantly find historical proof that Christendom knew the earth was flat.  From Enoch, to St. Augustine to St. Hildegard of Bingen, plus dozens of saints and Fathers of the Church, not to mention the digression on the subject by greats like Robert Bellarmine against heliocentrism in the 1600's, a position supported by at least 3 popes at the time, but also the fascinating typology expounded on by early saints likening the flat earth to a house, church architecture, the mass, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark and the Temple. Until the globe indoctrination escalated in the 15th century, the idea that earth was a globe was found largely in the pagan philosophies while the rest of the Christian world accepted the biblical view.  So, while Irving was only reiterating common knowledge against the encroaching indoctrination of a globe earth, even if he was anti-Catholic, he echoed the common understanding of saints, the Fathers of the Church, Scripture of course, and supported the reasonable history of truth against the pagan fantasies anti-Catholic lying NASA promotes to this day. 

I think I thought the Church just couldn't be sure, so She didn't include it in the canon.

Yes, this is my understanding.  I don't think the Church was 100% sure either way, so She left it out.

These posts below, from the start of this thread, are the reason why the point was being forwarded:


Quote from Quo Vadis Domine:


Quote from Tradman:

That's funny, I constantly find historical proof that Christendom knew the earth was flat.  From Enoch, to St. Augustine to St. Hildegard of Bingen, plus dozens of saints and Fathers of the Church, not to mention the digression on the subject by greats like Robert Bellarmine against heliocentrism in the 1600's, a position supported by at least 3 popes at the time, but also the fascinating typology expounded on by early saints likening the flat earth to a house, church architecture, the mass, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark and the Temple. Until the globe indoctrination escalated in the 15th century, the idea that earth was a globe was found largely in the pagan philosophies while the rest of the Christian world accepted the biblical view.  So, while Irving was only reiterating common knowledge against the encroaching indoctrination of a globe earth, even if he was anti-Catholic, he echoed the common understanding of saints, the Fathers of the Church, Scripture of course, and supported the reasonable history of truth against the pagan fantasies anti-Catholic lying NASA promotes to this day. 

Not sure what your point is. 

So the theory of the concentric spheres became popular after the revival of Aristotle in the scholastic era.  But what does that mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. In these celestial models, the apparent motions of the fixed stars and planets are accounted for by treating them as embedded in rotating spheres made of an aetherial, transparent fifth element (quintessence), like gems set in orbs. Since it was believed that the fixed stars did not change their positions relative to one another, it was argued that they must be on the surface of a single starry sphere.

In modern thought, the orbits of the planets are viewed as the paths of those planets through mostly empty space. Ancient and medieval thinkers, however, considered the celestial orbs to be thick spheres of rarefied matter nested one within the other, each one in complete contact with the sphere above it and the sphere below.

This is what the "learned men" of the period believed.  They did not believe in some force of gravity that could carry things along in some relatively-fixed orbit.  They used the spheres (a transparent semi-solid structure) to explain how the different planets could each have its own path, and then the stars all seemed to rotate together, in unison (because they were in the same sphere).

Here's one diagram of this model (from 1539):



Have a look in the center there.  That doesn't like like NASA's ball earth to me.