Very interesting GlasG4e, having rejected the astronomy of the senses, Leo XIII sets up an observatory to continue the work of the Pythagorean heretics under the guise of 'astronomy.', for that is what it did.Two years later, 1893, the Pope produced Providentissimus Deus.But then came a paragraph in Pope Leo XIII’s instructions reminiscent of the type of thing Galileo wrote in 1615 when he was attempting to convince all how to interpret the Scriptures heliocentrically. Galileo wrote:
‘Galileo: From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the Earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the Earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls.’--- Galileo’s Letter to Christina, 1615.
Now let us see what Providentissimus Deus said next:
’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. 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 [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.’
The above was so worded that it was seized by the Catholic (and Protestant) world who used it to support a Galilean exegesis and hermeneutics, a conclusion found everywhere throughout the years after it. ‘Similarly, “the sun stood still,” like our “the sun rises,” is a popular method of speaking, and involves the fact that in some way or another – and various ways have been suggested – God Almighty did prolong the hours of light in the case of Joshua; certainly does not necessarily involve inferences which churchmen of the time of Galileo unwisely read into the statement. They, as we have seen, were men of their own time and not in front of it, and they fell into the errors natural to what figured in those days of science. But we should be careful to make use of the better guidance which we have obtained in such utterances as the “Providentissimus Deus” and avoid the mistakes which we can see our predecessors have made and which, indeed, it would have been exceedingly difficult for them to have avoided.’[1] ‘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.’[2] ‘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.’[3]‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’[4] ‘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; but his restatement and development of Augustine’s teaching were destined to be influential in the future. 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.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’[8] ‘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]
[1] Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, 1920, p.81. [2] James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351. [3] E.C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931. [4] D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225. [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. [9] Vatican Observatory website 2013. [10] Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013. Consider all the above in the light that heliocentrism WaS NEVER PROVEN RIGHT, NOR THE 1616 DECREE PROVEN WRONG, and you will witness Catholicism falling under the spell of intellectual pride and the Galilean REFORMATION.
Topic: Let us not forget Fr Robinson's (SSPX) pagan cosmology (Read 3276 times)