What About Providentissimus Deus?

Creation vs. Evolution: Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet? · What About Providentissimus Deus? · HGL's F.B. writings: Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.

What can we really gather from the following paragraph or* semi-paragraph ?

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated 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."(53) 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,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

This one is very clear and clearly** binding:

If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."

But what about this one? I'll mark two phrases, for further study.

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."

Let's recall the Latin here, same phrases marked, also for further study:

primum, scriptores sacros, seu verius « Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista (videlicet intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem) docere homines, nulli saluti profutura (S. Aug., ib.***,II, 9, 20)

What is the Latin saying? It is not talking of "things of the visible universe" but of "things that can be seen" and it is not saying "essential nature" but "intimate constitution" and "intima" is superlative of "intus" meaning inside. One can without fault translate innermost. This will be important later on.

What exactly is St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII saying?

Is he saying
a) the Holy Ghost did not want to give scientific information WHEN it was of no use at all to the salvation of souls, as is often the case?
b) the Holy Ghost did not want to give scientific information SINCE that is never of any use at all to the salvation of souls?

To begin with, saying matter is never of any use to the salvation of souls rings Gnostic to me. Or Manichaeic. But it will get worse.

Despite the English translation saying sth else, the thing usually not spoken of in the Holy Scriptures, since usually indeed useless for salvation, like division of firmaments into solid crystalline spheres° can be ignored and the Bible say "firmament", can be classified as inner or innermost constitution of any visible thing.

Position B is that this is NEVER of any use.

Well, if that is what Pope Leo XIII was saying, he just disqualified Trent Session XIII on Transsubstantiation. He's be far easier doing that than saying Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are useless for salvation. Because the relation of substance to accident, notably of substance of bread no longer there after consecration and accidents of bread connected to the substance of the Body of Christ by the transsubstantiation, the turning of the whole one substance into the other one, and the accidents first inbeing in the substance of bread and then so to speak subsisting in the dimensive quantity (the 3 cm of the Host) by divine omnipotence, that very definitely is about the inner (and unseen) constitution of the Host, which is a thing that can be seen.

Note, this is more immediately under the scope of his words than Geocentrism. A Geocentric doesn't typically say that the intimate constitution of the Sun forces it to go around the Earth each day from East to West or that the intimate constitution of the Sun forces it to go around the Zodiac each year from West to East. No, a Geocentric like St. Thomas is more likely to say that a force external to the Sun moves it West each day (I'd say that God is moving all of a firmament constituted of aether, which is the substance of locality as well as medium of electromagnetic waves), and a force external to the Sun moves it (at least comparative to the stars) East each year (I'd say an actual angel moves it East through the aether). This is no more a statement about the inner constiution of the Sun, than stating what letter or word I write is a statement about the inner constitution of the pen I use. So, if the innermost constitution of seen things is NEVER useful for salvation, Transsubstantiation would be less of a candidate for revelation than Geocentrism.

But Trent Session XIII is binding dogma. If this is what Pope Leo XIII did, he pronounced dogma as not revealed and as useless to salvation. He autodeposed himself.

We cannot do that, we must presume he was Pope, and so, this reading is ruled out. Therefore, the incorrect reading is:
b) "the Holy Ghost did not want to give scientific information SINCE that is never of any use at all to the salvation of souls" (false!)

So, the correct reading is,
a) the Holy Ghost did not want to give scientific information WHEN it was of no use at all to the salvation of souls, as is often the case!

But if the Holy Ghost could reveal (in Christ's use of the word "this", Matthew 26:26, as we know from St. Thomas) that the substance of bread is turned into the Body of Christ, while the accidents of bread are not turned into the accidents of the Body of Christ (notably, the Host of 3 cm doesn't suddenly get close to 1 m 80 cm), then there are cases and could be other cases when the intimate consitution of visible things is indeed salvific to have the right view about.

Why could Geocentrism, revealed in Joshua 10:12 not be one of them? Because Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus somehow defined the matter as outside the scope of Scripture? He didn't. An F-search on "Sun" gives " and she has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the saving words of the Gospel at least on Sundays and solemn feasts." Similarily an F-search on "Earth" gives "for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of 'earthly' science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom 'which is from above.'" Each as sole hit.

Pope Leo XIII was probably by some episcopates (that would include the French) approached on this matter specifically. Instead he gave a more general answer.

If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."

As to the next sentence, it means "we don't always need to know scientific facts for our salvation" and that is up to the individual reader to decide. Obviously, a bishop could decide it for his flock, since an encyclical is primarily directed to bishops, but any bishop who ventured to pretend Heliocentrism could be true and useless for our salvation as well as Geocentrism also being so, even if it had been true, would be on a very slippery slope. Was he saying so because he thought the inner constitution of visible things never was useful for salvation? Well, as seen, that would involve heresy.

When will we all get our heads around that Leo XIII simply refused to directly adress the idea that Biblical expressions of Geocentrism are in apparent conflict with Science Institutional affirmations of Heliocentrism?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Zacharias and Elisabeth
5.XI.2024

Sancti Zachariae, Sacerdotis et Prophetae, qui pater exstitit beati Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini.

Item sanctae Elisabeth, ejusdem sanctissimi Praecursoris matris.

* In the English official translation, it is the latter part of § 18.
** Not because an encyclical is ipso facto infallible, it is authentic, however, it would be infallible if all and everyone among the bishops, including the Pope himself taught the same thing. And this principle has been authentic teaching since St. Augustine and furthermore upheld by both St. Thomas and Bishop Tempier against Averroism.
*** The previous reference is (S. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., I, 21, 41)
° Refuted by Tycho Brahe's observations of a comet. It passed through space at levels where solid spheres would have stopped it if they had existed.