The words for describing shapes are usually ambiguous in themselves. It is therefore easy to misunderstand short quotes. However, the larger context can sometimes make clear what model is under discussion. I gave the example of De Sphaera Mundi in which the context makes it very clear that he is talking about the nested sphere model. And we know that this represents the consensus of the time because this is what was taught in Catholic universities.
St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.
copied from:
http://flatearthtrads.com/Flat-Earth Priest on St. Thomas
A priest of the resistance who is flat earth has responded eloquently to the claims that St. Thomas Aquinas was in favour of the globe.
(Here is the article misrepresenting St. Thomas :https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round
The article:
S. THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE FLAT EARTH
In regard those who argue that St. Thomas would have defended the doctrine of the spherical earth, we must understand the following: when the Angelic Doctor made his comment on In Aristoteles Stagiritæ De Cælo et Mundo, there is no intention to agree with the thought of Aristotle, but simply to comment on the philosopher; moreover, that St. Thomas is a theologian and presents himself with such authority. The commentary on Aristotle's text is of a scientific-philosophical nature, and in this context St. Thomas did not intend to be a teacher, except in what would have relation to theology. Greek philosophers, however, included all the sciences in their philosophical work and they all commented on the question of the earth and the cosmos.
S. Thomas does not say that such a philosopher's opinion is right, or that Aristotle's opinion is perfect. He simply shows that Aristotle has the most logical opinion, according to the most accurate arguments of the philosophers of the time, mainly because they did not have the tools to visualize a greater distance and did not understand why the human vision does not reach the infinite of the horizon.
With this and other arguments, Aristotle argues that the earth can be spherical, but also the center of the cosmos, which is very different from a Heliocentric model, as defended by the Pythagoreans who were enemies of Aristotle. So, it´s important to understand that what is contained in the works of St. Thomas on this subject is only an exposition of the purely scientific cosmology of Aristotle completely outside the scope of his Theologian authority and outside of St. Thomas' custom of using the arguments philosophical arguments of Aristotle to conclude theological theories. Indeed, all we know is that the Heliocentric model is condemned by the Church because this doctrine is against the Scriptures and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers.
So, Let us see why Aristotle comes to such a conclusion and what St. Thomas actually comments:
1 - Platonic Astronomy:
First we need to know how Plato thought about it. For Plato, the cosmos is an orderly creation with perfectly ordered movements. In his writings he insists on the following ideas:
- Sphericity of the Universe
- sphericity of all celestial bodies, including Earth.
- central and immovable position of the Earth.
- The stars (planets, moon, sun, stars) spinning around the Earth at different distances.
2 - Aristotle (384-322 BC), the most celebrated of philosophers, assumes the cosmology of Plato and applies to solve the problems he presented. The Cosmos of Aristotle is a large but finite sphere centered on the Earth. In favor of the immobility of the Earth, (denied only by the Pythagoreans) Aristotle brings a series of arguments. Claudius Ptolemy (II century of our era) will lay the foundations in the Aristotle system and propose the theories of Astronomy that will prevail until the fifteenth century. In the exposition in this book (De cælo et mundo) Liber II in the lectio xx - xxviii St. Thomas is commenting on Aristotle about the question of whether the earth is spherical or round: Duæ adducuntur de terræ motu ac quiete sententiæ, de figura item ipsius terræ an spherica an rotunda inquirit.
However, the most important argument is that the earth cannot move. “ostendit quomodo obviabant rationibus contra se inductis” (he shows how they meet arguments brought against them) . And S. Thomas explains that Aristotle removed false ideas about it: “falsum intellectum qui ex his verbis haberi posset.”(removes the false understanding that could be obtained from these words) And he says: also Timæo proved the earth is firm and settled in the middle(probat terram in medio esse locatamet firmatam).
The reasons why the Earth would be spherical are 3 (all them in a scientific character according to the knowledge of that time.) Probat terram esse sphericam rationibus astrologicis per tres probationes (he proves that the earth is spherical with astronomical arguments with three proofs)
The first proof is because of the lunar eclipse (prima, sumitur ex eclypsi lunæ);
Second: is based on the appearance of the stars that are round: secundum quæ sumitur ex apparentia stellarum.
Third: Because we can’t see the same horizon in any place and our vision does not go more than a few kilometers, so we could imagine that it is a proof that the world is round. In his enim qui habitant in sphera .Et ex hoc apparet quod terræ est figuræ rotondæ: Si enim esset superficiei planæ omnes habitantes in tota terræ superficie ad meridiem et septemtrionem haberent eumdem horizontem. (And from this it appears that the earth is rotund in shape especially according to its aspect at the two poles — for if it were flat, all those dwelling on the whole face of the earth to the south and north would have the same horizon).
And in that time, there were mathematics that calculated the diameter of the earth and also the diameter of the sun! (170 x bigger than the earth) mathematicorum et probant astrologi solem esse centies septuagesies majorem terra. We can see that all that the modern science claims the same things that the Greeks said more than 2000 years ago!
But, obviously today a simple observer of nature, with good instruments can explain and destroy the three arguments of the old philosophers proving that the earth is flat.
After having made this clear, let´s now try to understand the work of S. Thomas about Aristotle which say that the earth cannot move and, if the other arguments above were not available to him, he supposes that the better would be to consider that the earth is really flat!
He starts to say: Quidam, scilicet Pythagorici, posuerunt terram moveri circa medium mundi, ac si esset una stellarum,(the Pythagoreans, assumed that it is in motion about the middle of the world, as though it were one of the stars) ...dicunt eam revolvi circa medium cæli, idest circa axem dividentem cælum per medium,( assert that it is revolved about the "middle of the heavens," i.e., about the axis which divides the heaven through the middle) sed Philosophus ostendit quod impossibile est terram sic moveri.(but Aristotle shows that it is impossible for the earth to be thus in motion)
In other words: the Philosopher (Aristotle) excluded the opinions that the earth could spin: excludit opiniones eorum qui falsas opiniones circa terram habebant,
And also explains that all things move around the earth to the earth, so it must be stable and it can´t move in anyway: Assignat causam quietis terræ et dicit quod ex præmissis manifestum est quæ sit causa quietis ejus. Sicut enim dictum est, terra naturaliter est nata moveri ex omni parte ad medium :sicut sensibiliter apparet quod ignis naturaliter movetur a medio mundi ad extremum. Unde sequitur quod nulla particula terræ vel parva vel magna potest moveri a medio nisi per violentiam. Manifestum est quod multo impossibilis est quod tota terra moveatur a medio. (he assigns the cause of the earth's rest and he says that from the foregoing everything goes to the middle. For, as has been said, earth is naturally inclined to be borne to the middle from every direction, as our sense observations indicate — and similarly it is apparent to sense that fire is naturally moved from the middle of the world to the extreme. Hence it follows that no particle of earth, small or large, can be moved from the middle except by violence; so, it is plainly much more impossible that the entire earth be moved from the middle.)
Concludit propositum: quod terra sit in medio mundi quia omnia corpora gravia moventur ad medium terræ. (That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth ) Et sic, ex præmissis, nihil movetur in loco ad quem naturaliter movetur, quia ibi naturaliter quiescit. Sed terra aliquando movetur ad medium mundi, (from the foregoing as follows: Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world.) ut probatum est, ergo, terra nullo modo movetur. (Therefore the earth is not in motion in any way)
After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)
Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28361 times)