Just asking, because I know he considers the encyclical Providentissimus Deus to be a “post-Galileo U-turn” which taught error to the universal Church.

I needn't tell you how much trouble my investigation into the history of the Galileo case has got me into. I was banned from three Catholic Forums because of my 30-year research into the Galileo case for a book called The Earthmovers.

Only today, on an academic forum, I commented on a thesis by a man trying to find 'the Theory of Everything.' I said anyone trying to find that theory of everything had best first read the Bible. He replied that he was an atheist and could not agree with geocentrism. He then added 'as an atheist I sometimes feel lonely, but I can imagine that as a geocentrist it must be even lonelier.'

I have read all the comments above and thank you those who put their trust in me and my views. As you know, the Galileo case is one of the most repeated histories of Catholicism and science. To fine-comb the truth took me many years of study, some of the information seemed to fall into my lap out of nowhere. I pray to God it was His doing to get to the truth of a history that challenged the divine protection of His Church and papal infallibility.

Ladislaus and Matto above are correct. I am not a sedevacantist, nor did I find anything in my research to make me one. I have had years of contact with sedevacantists, some even who tried to convert me over to that position, but my faith told me I am not allowed to make such a decision. If it did many more of us would join them as regards Vatican II popes.

The history of the Galileo case took centuries to understand properly. The records in the Secret Archives took ages to come out so that the facts could be known. In 1820, head man in the Holy Office, who admitted the 1616 decree was ireversable and unrevisible, believing heliocentrism was proven, tried to save the Church by saying the infallible definition was a violent heliocentrism, but now that 'modern astronomers' showed it was not a violent heliocentrism, the heresy could be bypassed. In other words Olivieri kept the infallible decree safe, but told Pope Pius VII he could allow books on modern heliocentrism be read and believed by Catgholics. The Pope believed his 'lie,' for the heresy had nothing to do with a violent earth but a fixed-sun. Pius VII said OK, let the books be taken off the Index and in 1835 Pope Gregory XVI did that. Having examined their decrees you will be glad that no pope ever tried to cjhallenge the 1616 decree, the infallible one. All they did was allow heliocentric books to be taken off the Index. Nevertheless, the heresy in them remained heresy.

So we see heliocentrism entered the Church's womb by way of fraud, not by way of doctrinal heresy. From 1820, a heliocentric meaning of Scripture was now allowed, a non-violent one, a 'non-heretical one.'. Once any Catholic, or Pope, who now believed in what was defined as heresy in 1616, did so because they believed it was proven to be so by science, they were no longer guilty of heresy. Their heresy had become material-heresy, which is not a direct deliberate rejection of a doctrinal teaching

Having got their heliocentric reinterpretation of Scripture, Modernists started reinterpreting Genesis in Particular with long ages and evolution. To try to stop this Pope Leo XIII had to bring out an Encyclical in 1893, Providentissimus deus. Now he was a captive of the 1820-1835 ploy of Olivieri's. Accordingly, the encyclical had to contradict itself, first telling all you cannot reinterprit the Bible as the modernists were doing and then having to defend the reinterpretation his predecessor popes did in 1820-35. Thus he included the following in P.D.

‘18: 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” (St Augustine). 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 [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. 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.’

And there is the licence to do another Galileo rereading of Scripture. Proof of this can be found everywhere:

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’[1]

‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’[2]

‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice [Galileo’s] in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’ --- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission.



‘On the other hand, Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’[5]

‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’[6]

‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between Biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’[7]  

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to Biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”.’[8]

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’[9]

‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’[10]

---

[2] E. C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.
[3] D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225.
[4] The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367.
[5] J. T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.
[6] Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68.
[7] M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, 2007, p.264.
[8] Catholics United for the Faith – what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010.
[9] Vatican Observatory website 2013.
[10] Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013.

Indeed, Providentissimus Deus was another one of those "open the door" moments, similar to that of Pius XII to evolution, or Pius IX to the "invincible ignorance" crowd on EENS.

There's no positive error in the teaching of Providentissimus Deus, in that it's certainly true that sometimes the Sacred Writers did use expressions or figures of speech that were metaphorical rather than "scientific" ... since, after all, the Hebrew language did not have a lot of scientific language.  Unfortunately, Leo XIII failed to lay down the rules in terms of where this was permitted and where it was not, to read something metaphorically.

Similarly, Pius XII did not actually teach evolution, but he permitted it to be discussed ... and that was a tragic error.

Between these two tragic mistakes, the Modernists went to town and completely destroyed Sacred Scripture.  These types of heretics cannot be given a single inch of leeway.

I agree with your comparison with Pope Pius XII and evolution, however the “invincible ignorance” comment is a bit of a stretch since Pope Pius XII was passive and Venerable Pius IX was actively teaching. Incidentally, all Venerable Pius IX was teaching was the fact that someone who is invincibly ignorant about anything is not culpable for it.

Pius XII, Humani Generis:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

This here is one of the most tragic statements in the history of the Magisterium.

First of all, though he doesn't say it, there's a strong implication that the Teaching Authority of the Church should bow to the "present state of human sciences", almost putting theology and the sciences on a par, on the same level.

Secondly, the notion that the human body came from "LIVING" matter is contrary to Sacred Scripture AND the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, who all assert unequivocally that Adam was created from the earth or the dust of the earth.  How "earth" or "dust of the earth" can be extrapolated into an "ape" without doing extreme violence to Sacred Scripture is absolutely inconceivable.  Where you could perhaps apply Providentissimus Deus is to say that the dust of the earth refers simply to the various chemicals and organic compounds that are found in abundance in the earth.  If you look at the chemical composition of the human body and that of earth or soil, there's a very close match (I'll dig it up at some point).  But if you hold that when Scripture states that God created Adam from the earth, the "earth" was just an ape ... then all of Genesis becomes a non-historical allegory of some kind replete with errors.

But Pius XII is not teaching that this was the case.  In fact, if you read on, he says that reasons both for and against must be considered, and the conclusions ultimately subjected to the Magisterium.  So all he's doing is opening up some freedom of discussion on the matter.  But that in and of itself was a horrible, horrible mistake.  We have this statement to thanks for the millions of Catholics who now hold that Genesis was merely a fanciful story.  And cassini points out the role that Providentissimus Deus played in this as well.  Where Leo XIII gave them the key, Pius XII unlocked the door ... which the Modernists then flung wide open.  It's similar to Roncalli talking about opening up the windows of the Vatican ... only to allow all the sewage into the Church.

The talk about geocentrism brought to mind a catechism class that I downloaded from SSPX Asia at least 10-12 years ago (relevant clip attached below). Fr. Scott gets upset that anyone would consider geocentrism true.

I think it is an example of why we need to examine the beliefs that we have picked up from the world, especially "proven science".

Couldn't agree more!   With the amount of lies and disinformation that has been getting light since the internet came around, makes me basically question anything "science" claims to be true.  And if some atheists scientist says one thing and Church tradition says another, guess who I'm siding with.  
Another consideration is relevancy.  Does it matter one way or another the way space works or the distant past of the earth?  In my opinion pretty much no, anything that is not working towards the salvation of souls is ancillary at best and totally irrelevant at another end of the spectrum.

Once again Ladislaus, as many faithful traditionalists secretly do, wishes that the Jansenists had won.

Ridiculous.  Jesuits should have been suppressed had they caused but 10% of the damage they actually did.  You need to study up a bit in all that the Jesuits “accomplished” throughout their history.  That first generation after St. Ignatius had some remarkable saints.  But it was downhill almost immediately after that.  Soon they asked to be dispensed from the Divine Office.  St. Pius V really disliked them.

The history of the damage done by the 1820-35 concession to heliocentrist books, and therefore to a heliocentric reinterpretation, continued into Pope Pius X's reign.

.
Oh no.  Not GEOCENTRISM again and the "INFALLIBLE" decree of Pius V.
Haven't we had enough of this ?