Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”—Genesis 3:1.
In Part 1 of Did God Really Say (Found on the Update section of my site this week) I told my own conversion story, explaining how God initially moved me from a progressive view of Biblical scholarship to a traditional Catholic view. This set the ground for my later conversions on both the moral life and even the liturgical life as a priest. I specifically credited a Hahn tape set on Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on Scripture.) I explained how that series “radicalized” me long before the Traditional Latin Mass did. But they are tied together.
Today, I am going to give my favorite quotes from Providentissimus Deus (henceforth abbreviated as “PD”) in italics. Then, I will give my own commentary in bold. Hopefully, you will see how this applies to any conversion from modernist to Apostolic Catholic. The fact is this: If you cannot believe the Bible, you really can’t believe anything God gives us in the Magisterium or the Mass. That’s why one of Satan’s first tricks was to ask Eve: Did God really say….?
We will now consider direct quotes from Pope Leo XIII in his 1893 encyclical on Sacred Scripture titled Providentissimus Deus:
This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, “being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.” This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the Books of both Testaments; and there are well-known documents of the gravest kind, coming down to us from the earliest times, which proclaim that God, Who spoke first by the Prophets, then by His own mouth, and lastly by the Apostles, composed also the Canonical Scriptures, and that these are His own oracles and words – a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country…such and so great is the excellence and the dignity of the Scriptures, that God Himself has composed them.—PD 1.
Notice above that it is not a Protestant idea to say the Bible is a “letter” directly composed by God Himself to us humans on earth. That assertion comes directly from one of the greatest Popes over the last two hundred years.
Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all.—PD 10.
This is one of the many reasons why I say modernism is such a worse heresy than Protestantism. At least “evangelicals” today still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (even if they are missing a few books in their Bible.) But rationalists and modernists “have rejected even the scraps of Christian belief” as Pope Leo XIII wrote above. Sadly, modernists today think they have even more reasons to doubt every assertion of the Sacred Scriptures, from creation to miracles to morals. The modernists now try to apologize for every aspect of the Catholic teaching, as evidenced in the recently-released Magnifica Humanitas, another snooty attempt at placing universalist humanism over Divine Revelation.
The Holy Fathers “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth – who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,” the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith…. [God’s] teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”—PD 14.
Even most traditional Catholics today are completely unaware of the above teaching, namely, that anytime the Church Fathers have interpreted a line from Scripture unanimously, the Catholic Church considers that teaching to be infallible. Yes, literally infallible. Notice in the above quote that Pope Leo XIII is taking his teaching on the Church Fathers directly from the infallible dogmatic Council of Vatican I. This means that the Catholic Church has hundreds more infallible statements than simply the two “ex-cathedra” statements from Popes over the last two hundred years that you must believe to be saved. In fact, everything in the Bible is not only infallible, but inerrant. (I describe it this way: If encyclicals from valid Popes are like darts guaranteed to land somewhere on the dart-board, every word of Scripture is a bull’s eye on that same dart-board.)
But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.—PD 15.
As you may remember, I spent last summer in Jerusalem. While there, I went to the Shrine of the Book exhibit in the Israel Museum holding the original Dead Sea Scrolls. The more I study the Dead Sea Scrolls (or other archeological finds that are authentic) the more I see they support the inerrancy of Scripture as held by Apostolic Catholics and the best of the Orthodox and evangelicals. This is why we Catholics should not be afraid of true historical Biblical scholarship, even as we reject the literary-critical approach to the Bible (which cares very little for true history._ As seen above, Pope Leo XIII also encouraged real historical Biblical studies, provided we use the Church Fathers as our guard-rails. Also, notice above that he made abundantly clear above, “the literal and obvious” sense of the Bible needs to take precedent over any metaphorical interpretations of the Bible. That means Moses truly parted the Red Sea by the power of God as a real historical event. Yes, this is the true and historical Catholic approach to the Bible, even though most Catholics today erroneously believe this is a Protestant or “evangelical” approach to the Bible alone.
The sophisms of the enemy and his manifold arts of attack we have already touched upon. Let us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first means is the study of the Oriental languages and of the art of criticism. These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation, and therefore the clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge their office with becoming credit; for they must make themselves “all to all,” always “ready to satisfy every one that asketh them a reason for the hope that is in them.”—PD 17.
This is one reason why I study Greek every week, if not every day. I have kept my New Testament Biblical Greek up for the last twenty years. Not only does it aid in my daily meditations on the Gospel, but it helps me show Protestant friends that I as a traditional priest keep up on my Greek almost as much as my Latin. How can I convince them of the Catholic truths of the Bible if I have no sense of the original languages?
In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality.—PD 18
Above is one reason it is so important to reject Darwinian evolution and even theistic evolution. Today, there are a couple Catholic Biblical scholars I admire who hide the fact they are against evolution. They believe this is a strategy in order to advance their careers as they espouse a relatively orthodox interpretation of the Bible in various lay groups and even seminaries for future priests. I understand why they believe they will be fired for trashing evolution, but now is not the time for strategy. Now is the time for courageously doing exactly what Pope Leo XIII explained above in his encouragement to Scripture scholars taking captive all the errors of the day for the supreme reign of Christ on earth.
Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. 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.” 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.”—PD 18
The above quote shows that we traditionalists should not be afraid of real science in any of the fields presented to us. Of course, the modifier there is real science. I stopped believing in evolution as a pre-med student at Boston College based on the classes on genetic and cellular biology as presented to me by a Harvard professor. I rejected evolution as a bunk theory long before I even knew we had numerous pre-Vatican II Popes who had rejected it. (Again, you have to remember my theological conversion came after some of my moral conversions.)
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.—PD 20.
This may be the most important quote from the entire encyclical. Today, many people once-baptized Catholic unfortunately believe that only “fundamentalists” accept the Bible as coming directly by God to man. But notice again true Catholic teaching: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost.” Holding to this is absolutely required for any Catholic who desires to be saved. Yes, we must believe that every chapter of the Bible exists without even the smallest error of history, science or theology. Why? Because it is impossible that “any error can co-exist with inspiration.” The Bible is truly the Word of God and it is inspired in a manner not even found in the writings of the greatest Popes or saints, even the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas. (And yes, St. Thomas would be the first to support me on this assertion.)
*************************************
By the way, if you want to approach the Bible as the Church Fathers did, please listen to my series titled Video Lectio Divina (VLX) where we do a Patristic evaluation of every verse found in the Gospel of St. Matthew. You can listen to each one of the videos from start to finish on my VLX playlist on YouTube.
Also, there are no paid subscriptions on any of my articles, so I thank you even for small donations here.