Breaking in the habit video on Exodus hurts my faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steph03

Guest
So Father Casey (who makes Breaking the Habit videos on youtube) has come out with a new video on the Exodus. He believes that most of the story of the Exodus is simply made up, that there are partials of truth in it, but overall it is a myth. That something did happen, but not like the Bible presents it. And he says that is the Catholic way of viewing this.

Here is the video;


I have to admit, this video is giving my faith a hard time. While I have no problem with the Adam & Eve story being metaphor, I firmly believe that everything Abraham on was pretty accurate. If Exodus did not happen like in the Scriptures, how are we to trust even the New Testament where Jesus talks about Moses, and even has an encounter with Moses at the transfiguration. Where do you draw the line as to what is true and what is made up?

I remember in the late 70s when I was told by a priest that whether Jesus existed or not in history did not matter. That the message was what was important. Or a Catholic theologian telling me that Eternal life was not going to heaven, but was the memory we left with our friends and family after we die and they remember us. I don’t want to go back to those days.

In my book, if Moses did not exist and Exodus never happened, why would we trust anything else since the Biblical authors really make a strong effort in describing all kinds of geographical areas in detail, listing generation by generation for every descendant, go out of their way to put facts on the table… and in the end we say it is all just made up (ok, maybe there is a little truth in there mixed in the myth)?

OK, rant over
 
Last edited:
I found a while ago that Brother Casey errors as he doesn’t believe in the doctrine of the Total Inerroncy of Scripture. I wrote him on this but he didn’t respond.

Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus

“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 Spirit; 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. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
He believes that most of the story of the Exodus is simply made up, that there are partials of truth in it, but overall it is a myth.
Click to expand...
That is not what he said. He said that there are some details about the story that cannot be accurate, but that a real event did take place and God did save his people from bondage and form a covenant with them. He said the story is neither pure myth nor 100% accurate literal description of events. It’s a combination of both and of immense theological significance.

This is exactly as I have always understood the Old Testament.
 
The faithful have had to put up with unbelieving priests for decades. They have been large and in charge in the Church, removing kneelers, removing statues, refusing to put holy water at the door ways, ridiculing the people who stay to pray the rosary. The feeding of the 5 thousand? Nothing supernatural about that, just people sharing their lunch. (I’m sure everyone had fish in their pockets all day in a hot country, right?) How about confession by appointment? Forget any privacy. What is a priest doing before and after mass if not being available to the sacrament for the washing of sins by the Blood of Christ? Padre Pio, pray for us! There is a long list that the faithful has had to grind their teeth, and for a long time.

When a believer talks about the Exodus, he’s not going to be planting seeds of doubt. Lay a strong foundation like a master builder. It’s an incredible moment in the history of mankind. Not only are there many things pointing forward to Christ, they also are pointing to the yet unseen Christ coming to judge the world, the taking of the believers to the New Heaven and the New Earth. The reality of what will happen when we say Come Lord Jesus!

Just more of the same. The faithful ask their shepherds for bread and he gives a stone. I hear ya steph03.
 
Last edited:
It’s not popular on CAF, but it’s pretty common in Biblical scholarship that the events in Exodus are partially legend and didactic.

It doesn’t mean Moses and Aaron and the Israelites aren’t real.
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
He believes that most of the story of the Exodus is simply made up, that there are partials of truth in it, but overall it is a myth.
Click to expand...
Good reason to ignore any whose ‘work’ more connects with instilling Doubt than Faith
 
Last edited:
You are not required to accept the view of Fr. Casey, or Brother Casey, or whoever he is (I’m not familiar with him).

The Church permits you to believe Exodus is 100 percent literal if you like. And for all we know, it might be. None of us were there and there’s not video footage of all the events.

Part of being a mature Catholic is having your own viewpoint and not being bothered if someone else has a different one that you don’t like, as long as the other viewpoint is also permitted by the Church. I frankly couldn’t care less what this Casey person thinks, I’m capable of making up my mind about Exodus on my own, and doing my own research if I need to.
 
Last edited:
For the record, this is NOT Fr. William Casey! He is a Franciscan and a young one. His views may reflect his particular formation, and that may not have been the absolute best. In recent decades, the various Franciscan orders (as well as others) have had a somewhat tumultuous time, with some friars leaving and forming new orders. Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Andrew Apostoli (both of blessed memory) are notable and 100% trustworthy examples.

If something - no matter who the presenter is - is corrosive to your faith…

Ask questions. Seek clarification. If that is no help, then walk away! Wrong messenger for you. Seek faithful Catholics whose teaching and evangelization builds you up.
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
That something did happen, but not like the Bible presents it. And he says that is the Catholic way of viewing this.
Click to expand...
I think it would be accurate to say that is A Catholic way of viewing it, but maybe not THE Catholic way of viewing it. I think his view of the Exodus is pretty widespread among Catholic bible scholars and theologians, but the Church certainly allows a more literal view.
 
I tend to believe it as well. The Jewish people were sticklers at preserving their history.
Besides, I like to picture it looking much like “The Ten Commandments”.

I am never quite sure why a certain segment of Catholics are always so anxious to explain away parts of the OT. I can tell you the priest I know who is a converted Evangelical never does that.
 
Last edited:
Probably differs from person to person, but I think for the ones who start out with a belief in whatever version is more palatable to non-practicing people (or they gel with that palatable belief really quickly and easily), they become extra cemented in it because they think believing that interpretation makes it easier to do apologetics with people who are non-practicing… And they can (accidentally, I hope) end up overdoing it on commiserating with the person they’re trying to bring home, sort of exchanging friendly elbows with them and saying essentially: “I know, right? Silly that some people believe that. You don’t have to though. You reaaaaally don’t have to. I don’t. See how much I don’t? I’ll hit that bad opinion with a stick. Now come home please?”

I don’t think it’s a great approach because it throws other people (and legitimate alternative opinions) under the bus. But that’s my guess on a main psychological reason why some people do it.
 
Last edited:
Yeaaaah, God bless him, but I’ve avoided Brother Casey (Father Casey, now, it sounds like?) since a news story about him a while ago where he publicly posted something really clumsy and misleading about something important (I forget what), then was stubborn and refused to yield any ground on it when people raised the concern with him.

I think he’s just young. I hope he’ll mellow out a bit, and become less prone to presenting his private opinions as ‘the’ right answers, in time.

In the meantime, as others have said, Fr. Casey is a fallible man, and you’re not bound to accept his interpretation of things. Keep coming back to what the overall Church herself teaches (and the multiple interpretations possible, where applicable). Story of Exodus is one of those.

Oh incidentally the Church does have a firm teaching that Adam and Eve are not “metaphor”. At least, without having to take certain other elements of Genesis literally (e.g. we don’t have to believe in 6 literal days of creation), the Church requires us to believe that Adam was a real singular man, and Eve a real singular woman (i.e. they don’t represent ‘tribes’ of multiple humans, or something), however their ancestors evolved. I only mention because you mentioned that example. The Church does have official teaching on that one.
 
Last edited:
I just figure if I am going to believe that a man was the Son of God, born to a virgin, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is physically present every day hidden behind the appearance of bread and wine that we consume, then it’s not that hard to believe God sent plagues upon Egypt, parted the sea so the Israelites could flee, appeared as pillars of cloud and fire, etc.

The problem with this “oh you don’t really believe that part of the Old Testament do you?” is that it very easily morphs into the New Testament. “Oh, you don’t really believe Jesus ascended to Heaven, do you? That was a popular myth about Roman emperors and pagan gods.” “Oh, you don’t really believe Mary was a virgin, do you? Jesus’ dad was Joseph, or maybe a Roman soldier named Pantera” etc.
 
Haha oh I agree, I have no problem with literal interpretations of anything. (I might tend towards thinking ‘yes literal’ in some cases, and ‘no not literal’ in others, but God is God and there’s nothing I’d claim He can’t or didn’t do, if the Church permits a literal interpretation for a given part of Scripture. I actually have great affection for literalists all the way down. I like them. Don’t necessarily agree with them on every point, but I appreciate their straightforwardness in just saying “Yep,” to a story and moving on. I will throw bean bags at their opponents and defend these lovely people from mockery. I like them. (And I’m honestly open to believing they’re right. Not trying to be condescending.))
 
Last edited:
Some Of Those who constantly question Sacred Scriptures
are the ones whom IMO are to be viewed with suspicion…

They come across very IMO non- even anti- Christian. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top