Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.

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.

From the FB forum Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism. By SSPX, I'm referring to the obedience of Bp. Fellay, not that of Bp. Williamson. The status and words of Peter Rabbit are kept as, but he's referred to Peter Rabbit on request of anonymity.

Peter Rabbit

26.X.2024

Author

Several years ago the SSPX published a rebuttal of geocentricism and creationism, claiming that scripture does not teach nor can it teach scientific theories, their principal source being this quote from Providentissimus Deus: “ (52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated [on the inerrancy of scripture] 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”

Frankly I find this convincing but am nonetheless interested in hearing your responses.

I

Henoch Skryba

SSPX is not inerrant as we see. How anyone orthodox can read Genesis and come to the conclusion that the lifespans of the patriarchs are "symbolic"?

Peter Rabbit

Henoch SkrybaThis is not an sspx document but an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII

Peter Rabbit

Henoch Skryba I’m interested in hearing a different perspective but I believe I’m bound to believe what Papal encyclicals teach and PD teaches that Genesis is figurative and does not teach any scientific theories

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, but it seems you are talking past each other.

If SSPX ever said "the lifespans of the patriarchs are symbolic" that is NOT from Providentissimus Deus.

The Encyclical does not directly touch on either Geocentrism / Heliocentrism, nor on Old Earth or Young Earth. It can be used as a coverall for Heliocentrism, Old Earth, Infinite Universe Cosmology and lots more, but only by eisegesis into the actual words.

If we take the words of Leo XIII as they stand and in Thomistic context (and remember, St. Thomas was Geocentric and Young Earth), the passage of speaking of what appears to the senses only actually covers Scripture leaving things out, rather than getting things in reverse or lifespans symbolically enhanced or addition of lifespans heraldically telescoped or things.

It is not Providentissimus Deus, but an abuse of Providentissimus Deus to use it against Young Earth and Geocentrism being either true or revealed or co-revealed in Scripture.

By co-revealed, I mean things like the ferocity of lions is co-revealed, in so far as revelation takes it for granted, at least from the Fall to the Millennium or Parousia. I would not say Geocentrism is revealed, but I would say it is co-revealed.

And I would say I am not contradicting Providentissimus Deus.

As to things totally inprofitable to salvation, apart from non-truths, I don't know what is. But if sth is, it is hardly sth which is the subject of a lively controversy.

Leo XIII may have or may not have hoped to avoid that controversy, but his words do not remain applicable to the case if the controversy is actually there.

Now, if SSPX admits that being wrong on the thing is totally harmless, well, then we can have a case for the words according to them being applicable. But even that is not the case. They insist that Geocentrics and Young Earth Creationists are (at least those very outspoken ones online) doing some kind of harm. And if that is the case, it cannot be that the question is without consequence for the salvation of souls, and it cannot be denied that the Holy Gost can have intended to either reveal or have the context of revelation confirm sth naturally known, I take the latter position.

II

Scott Blacker

Admin

".....(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated [on the inerrancy of scripture] 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”

My first Questions is to clarify your postion on above..

Do you belive in inerrancy of ALL of scripture from first letter to last.?

Or just the verses "profitable unto salvation"?

Do you think Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus can be used to say the Church of 1616 to 1633 to be in error for literal interpretation of sacred scripture concerning the immobility of the Earth and mobility of celestial bodies.

If so with that same logic can we now say that Pope Leo can be in error?

i

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker the way I was taught magisterial reversals is they are possible if the later documents are of a higher “weight” than previous ones. Encyclicals and Bulls are of the highest weight while homilies or angelus addresses have next to no weight, with other documents occupying places in between. We have historical examples prior to VII of private heresy in a papal homily (ie john xxii) while many authors admit no possibility of heresy private or formal within encyclicals.

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blackerthe PD quote is explaining the meaning of a prior St Augustine quote which is used by Creationists to assert this argument

A → B
A
∴B

Where
A= Science contradicts scripture
B= science is false

But in reality St Augustine is using not modus ponens but a more complex conjunctive syllogism

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit 1616/33 were decrees (type of Papal bull?), Condemnation never been lifted to this day, 2 x Pope's, 2x Catechism, 2x Councils (prohibited interpretation of sacred scripture contrary to Unaminious consent of Fathers - 100% Earth immobile and celestial bodies mobile), re admitted by Leo XIII on same document cited above albeit in broader ambiguous language. For me that list alone carries more authorative weight then one Pope's Encyclical. Plus we have the empirical scientific data that supports Geocentrism and theoretical physics that cannot disprove Geocentrism. That should at least make you think that the Holy Spirit was not on vacation for 97% of Church history in holding true to a Geocentric universe all that time.?.

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit I'm not afraid to admit I'll require study on this, I've only partially read on St Augustine.

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker I believe it was a non-magisterial (juridical) decree of the inquisition/cdf, but I admit I’ll need to do some research myself, if you pm me your gmail I can give you editing privileges for you to add your findings to the google doc. I’m fine just discussing here too

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Do you think Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus can be used to say the Church of 1616 to 1633 to be in error for literal interpretation of sacred scripture concerning the immobility of the Earth and mobility of celestial bodies."

No, it cannot.

It cannot because Leo XIII is according to the letter of his words speaking of things like the intimate nature of physical reality. But Geocentrism or Heliocentrism is not about Solar Protuberances or the H + H => D, D + D => He process of fusion, it is about things much more directly knowable, and actually known since Creation, I take St. Paul in Romans 1 and St. Thomas in Prima Via are adressing God as the prime mover of astronomical objects.

It would be more plausible even to take it as questioning whether the issue of Transsubstantiation vs Consubstantiation (both involve Real Presence) could be settled. Because accidents and substance are propositions on some level about the intimate nature of physical reality. However, I think the Council of Trent settled this in Session XIII, canon 2. Which has higher weight than Providentissimus Deus.

"But in reality St Augustine is using not modus ponens but a more complex conjunctive syllogism"

The conjunctive syllogism has two conditional phrases.

The one condition is, if a philosopheme contradicts what Scripture certainly says, it is false, the other is that if a Scriptural exegesis contradicts what observation and reason (not "Science" reg. trademark!) make necessary, the exegesis is wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit "it was a non-magisterial (juridical) decree of the inquisition"

The decree was not on the behaviour of Galileo (1616 doesn't even mention him), but exclusively on doctrinal questions in the first instance, and in the second one, involved a personal slant on Galileo related to the repeated doctrinal matter.

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahlaccording to the letter of his words leo is speaking of the “essential nature of things of the visible universe” not the intimite nature of physical reality. If you’re going to say something like “to be precise” maybe you should follow that up with being precise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How is "essential nature" and "intimate nature" not equipollent?

Unlike your own attribution to me of words like "letter of st leo" I did not misquote all that much from memory.

I held the document before me (on internet) while answering Father Robinson, and did not feel the need to consult it a second time before answering you.

My bad, but not all that bad, after all.

[Plus I apparently hadn't said "to be precise" in this precise context or even this precise FB discussion ... and didn't he have anything to say on the actual content of my argument?]

Plus

it so happens, the "intimate" part of my misquote is arguably a conflation of the same and a following sentence of the Latin text:

Sin tamen dissenserint, quemadmodum se gerat theologus, summatim est regula ab eodem oblata : « Quidquid, inquit, ipsi de natura rerum veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus nostris Litteris non esse contrarium; quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Litteris, id est catholicae fidei, contrarium protulerint, aut aliqua etiam facultate ostendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus esse falsissimum (S. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., I, 21, 41) ». De cuius aequitate regulae in consideratione sit 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) »;

SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI LEONIS DIVINA PROVIDENTIA PAPAE XIII
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE STUDIIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE* (Providentissimus Deus)
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

ij

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker Re the inerrancy of scripture I think we should create a list of assumptions and definitions. Here’s a google doc

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-X_OVfBRT6RMtcbv27s8qmBeaqYSrJ9nIfqggDEwcXo/edit

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit "The study of the empirical realm through inductive reasoning. I also like Dietrich Von Hildebrands definition which is roughly the study of contingent but highly probable essence structures."

Both definitions miss out a vital ingredient on what you are assuming when you assume Heliocentrism is Science.

They miss out on Science as Institution, and as institutionally a Quasi-Magisterium.

This is however something which totally can falsify the things that St. Augustine, and (partially at least) Pope Leo XIII were talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"certain terms like “cosmos” or “world” must be used in their pre-scientific pre-modern or even pre-hellenistic-proto-scientific sense"

Sts Augustine and Thomas are also speaking in what "Science" as modern institution would term "pre-scientific" and "pre-modern" terms.

As to "pre-hellenistic-proto-scientific" this is what St. Thomas was getting at, insofar as Moses hadn't mentioned the crystalline spheres (which don't appear to the senses), which Hellenistic "proto-science" posited and modern science posits no longer.

I think this reversal on the "scientific" side should be noted.

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah what kind of problem do you think needs to be noted. I’m curious because you’re coming close to a big theme in von hildebrand’s “what is philosophy”

Hans-Georg Lundahlas far as “when you assume heliocentrism” and other claims about my beliefs I didn’t say that. Your hs teacher taught you heliocentrism because that’s a convenient historical convention. Modern physics is more complicated than that. There is a real sense in which it is agnostic on this question.

From that perspective I’m not making a positive claim, only a negative claim about geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl quite frankly your argument style is so full of strawmen, wordsalad (eg your self contradiction on the “letter of st leo”), and general inability to engage in a direct manner, I see little fruit in further dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What? Quoting you:

(eg your self contradiction on the “letter of st leo”)

Would you mind using a correct devise? Here are the actual words

which totally can falsify the things that St. Augustine, and (partially at least) Pope Leo XIII were talking about.

If you read hastily on a cell-phone, you will misread and diagnose word salad where there isn't any.

“when you assume heliocentrism” and other claims about my beliefs I didn’t say that.

I'm classing any non-Geocentrism as a species of Heliocentrism. By the way, I said "when you assume Heliocentrism is Science" and not "correct" or "current" science and also not "truth" ...

The negative claim about absolute Geocentrism actually is what I'm talking about.

By the way, "falsify" ... I probably meant in the French sense of "fausser" = distort. The meaning is, Sts. Ausgustine and Thomas (and partially at least Pope Leo) were not speaking of Science as an institution. (In Pope Leo's case, that is only partially true).

I think you also made a garbled reading of my phrase:

because Leo XIII is according to the letter of his words speaking of things like the intimate nature of physical reality.

Perhaps "according to the letter of his words" is bad phrasing, I should have said "according to his words taken literally" ... but you are aware that there is a difference between that and describing an Encyclical as "letter of St. Leo" (quoting what you garbled it into)?

If you are too bad at language for that, you should simply NOT be dabbling in reading encyclicals. Some people are very challenged in expressions not matching their habitual ones. Such people are likely to get Encyclicals from over 100 years ago wrong.

III

Scott Blacker

Everyone Jacob is seeking truth on this subject in our Group title. He has raised a good question re Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus in light of recent CFN podcast with SSPX priest. This thread is to address this specific question. Remember we've all been here at somepoint ourselves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Scott Blacker Would the recent podcast be the interview on Catholic Family Podcast?

I've adressed Fr. Robinson before and am currently more than halfway through that video and adressing it.

"Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX" First Fifth Reviewed · Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth · Third Fifth of Same Interview

"Remember we've all been here at somepoint ourselves."

I've never actually even as a Catholic gone out of my way to contradict literalism.

Five years into my conversion, I was probably no longer a literalist, but possibly on the way to returning to the position, which at my conversion I had neither explicitly nor implicitly abjured.

Ten to twelve years after my conversion, I have the opportunity to read City of God by St. Augustine, who according to that book certainly is a Young Earth Creationist, as well as a Literalist on the action of the Apocalypse, however, not a premillennialist, he held and I hold the millennium is now ongoing (saints in Heaven are probably approaching a medium length of rule with Christ as 1000 years).

Getting into the debates on forums after that, I find Distant Starlight an unforeseen objection to Young Earth Creationism, and I find Geocentrism a possible solution, but since then it seems to me it solves so much more.

Scott Blacker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes that same podcast. Jacob raised a specific question which I discovered you already treated in your retort part 1/2/3. Thank you. Peter Rabbit please consider reading above links by Hans-Georg.

I have also attempted to in this thread.. My "Remember we've all been here at some point ourselves." is in relation to holding Heliocentrism as core belief - being challenged - now holding Geocentrism as Truth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually held Heliocentrism as de facto true, but not as a core belief.

In High School, I asked a physics teacher how we knew Heliocentrism, and was satisfied (but not over-enthusiastic) at the time when he said "the calculations of orbits from the masses coincide with the orbits we observe" (if we assume Heliocentrism).

I had not then reckoned with two things, namely:

a) it's circular, we "know" the masses from the orbits;
b) how if Angelic movers tweaked the outcome of masses a bit? I mean to orbits we observe (as in actually observe).

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahlyou never addressed my quote

Hans-Georg Lundahl one of the big problems that keeps coming up here is that one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. If you want to prove something you have to address both

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blackeryeah I don’t really believe in heliocentrsm and it certainly isn’t a core belief. My only concern is you guys dissenting from pd’s belief that scripture doesn’t contain support for creationism/ geocentrism

Scott Blacker for the record I believe in geocentrism even less than I believe in heliocentrism though

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit In part three, I did so under time stamp 24:37.

"If you want to prove something you have to address both"

I kind of did. I actually mentioned that St. Augustine made a disjunctive premiss. For each separate matter, with some apparent conflict, there is an evaluation whether it is a conclusion that does not follow from the observations or an exegesis that does not strictly follow from the canoninical text (or the canonical text in all its versions).

"one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens."

How about you recall that yourself before you stamp a conclusion from observations as valid knowledge? Remember, unlike Geocentrism, Heliocentrism as such is never an observation, it's always just an indirect conclusion.

"pd’s belief that scripture doesn’t contain support for creationism/ geocentrism"

Providentissimus Deus never actually says that.

A much better application of the principle referred to is to use it as an answer if someone asks "why didn't God reveal string theory" or "quantum physics" ... supposing each (either of them, possibly both together) to be true, the Bible neither reveals it nor contradicts it. Precisely as with the crystilline spheres that the Hebrew view hadn't and the Greek one had, and St. Thomas explains why it was not mentioned by Moses, and it turns out Tycho Brahe made an observation that disproved the theory.

Back to part 3, here is my comment under the quote from Providentissimus Deus:

Like, the actual physical shape of the earth was not profitable unto salvation when the both Testaments consistently write in a manner compatible with both Round Earth and Flat Earth, and now it does matter in order to get maps to far off populations, we see the words of Scripture matching Round Earth and corners of continents.

However, in order to put Geocentric utterances of Scripture in the light of "Heliocentrism being true but unprofitable" we should consider whether Geocentrism is profitable. If you look at European (including colonial) history of ideas since 1633, you can observe that both Heliocentrism and Atheism have been more accepted since then. And you will agree that Atheism is actually harmful to a soul.

Now, my best Geocentric prooftext in the Bible is actually Romans 1.

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:20]

IV

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit an interesting article for your consideration please (Creation source). PS I have found a response from another member other than mine above which addresses your question more specifically (PD document language and how to reconcile). its in another thread so I will re post here and tag original author (it was a response to original interview I shared on CFN).

https://kolbecenter.org/kolbe-report-10-26-24/

[The Kolbe Center link seems not to deal specifically with Providentissimus Deus.]