O
otm
Guest
tom.wineman said:
And the heresy is…?
The Catholic Church is not an absolute literalist church. You can be a “bible believing” priest and not believe that every last statement in the bible is literally true.
- Status
And the heresy is…?
The Catholic Church is not an absolute literalist church. You can be a “bible believing” priest and not believe that every last statement in the bible is literally true.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Nice work. :tiphat:
M
Michael_C
Guest
Dave, Thank you. This is the type of evidence I’m looking for. I also plan to read Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino afflante spiritu, and Humani generis which may take some time for me. I understand the importance of being on the “same page” as the Church that Christ founded. I’ve always been firm in my faith but like Carol Marie I was a bit shaken.
T
tom.wineman
Guest
Inquired at my parish but they didn’t have any courses in heresy.
I was directed across town to the Unitarian Universalist Church
**that has a course in New Age Creative Scripture Interpretation. Is that was ****you are talking about ?
**
P
pnewton
Guest
carol marie:
Yes, Virginia. There really is a baby Jesus.
I’m glad this is settled. I would hate to miss Christmas. We can always change it to All Myths Day and exchange gift boxes where presents would have been if they were real.
Yes, Virginia. There really is a baby Jesus.
P
patg
Guest
I think both “sides” have now stated their opinions pretty clearly (the critical/contextual readers vs the literal/fundamentalists) and I guess it is always hard to make a distinction between reading something as “teaching truth” vs “literal truth”.
I understand where literalists are coming from - the story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read each year in the glow of candles and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are very reluctant to question anything related to them.
My closing points are these:
I understand where literalists are coming from - the story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read each year in the glow of candles and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are very reluctant to question anything related to them.
My closing points are these:
*]There is nothing even slightly unCatholic about doubting that the infancy narratives are history. Thre is no requirement or penalty of sin for believing that they are primarily fiction.
*]It is a fact that the ancients wrote elaborate and miraculous introductions for stories about famous people to demonstrate their perceived status and elevate their stature. These well-known literary forms are called “infancy narratives” and the stories in Matthew and Luke follow the popular formula exactly.
*]If item 2 isn’t enough, it is a fairly trivial exercise to demonstrate the many errors and inaccuracies in the stories. However, there is NO ERROR in the truth they teach which is why the history is so unimportant.
*]Jesus told stories (parables) to teach truths. Do you believe that these were stories of literal history? or do you allow him to use fiction to teach truth?
*]Doubting the history does not discredit the truth!!!
I believe that historical accuracy does not affect the truth and that we should concentrate on the message rather than worship the words. I enjoy these discussions mainly because of my life long passion for biblical history and analysis.
Pat
M
Melito
Guest
I think both “sides” have now stated their opinions pretty clearly (the critical/contextual readers vs the literal/fundamentalists)
That’s a misapprehension of the dispute, Pat. It’s not critical/contextual readers vs literal/fundamentalists. It’s modernist biblical speculations vs orthodox Catholicism. (Modernism is proscribed, condemned heresy, by the way.) Orthodox Catholicism not only allows for critical/contextual reading, but requires it – so long as it does not violate the Faith and/or disregard the dictates and principles of the science of Christian biblical exegesis. The belief that Jesus wasn’t really born in Bethlehem both violates the Faith and disregards those dictates and principles.
I understand where literalists are coming from - the story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read each year in the glow of candles and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are very reluctant to question anything related to them.
That may be where some are coming from, but those things don’t enter into it for me, or for the Church. I just look at the Gospels and I see them claiming that Jesus fulfilled the Holy Spirit’s prophecy in Micah that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and then I see some so-called scholars come along and claim that in fact the story that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is a lie, but that the lie is still true even though it is false. Catholicism has no room for the speculation that the Evangelists made up a story about Jesus’ birth merely because Jews expected the Messiah to be born in a certain location. That’s another way of saying that Jesus didn’t really fulfill the Messianic prophecies, which is another way of saying Jesus wasn’t really the Messiah, which is another way of saying Christianity is false. The posts in this thread have made it absolutely clear that the Catholic Church has always upheld and continues to uphold the historicity of the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Saints Matthew and Luke. We aren’t Spongian Episcopalians – we’re Catholics.
1. There is nothing even slightly unCatholic about doubting that the infancy narratives are history. Thre is no requirement or penalty of sin for believing that they are primarily fiction.
Then reconcile that doubt with what the Church teaches.
2. It is a fact that the ancients wrote elaborate and miraculous introductions for stories about famous people to demonstrate their perceived status and elevate their stature. These well-known literary forms are called “infancy narratives” and the stories in Matthew and Luke follow the popular formula exactly.
Yes, but you have to distinguish between literary forms and the content of the literary forms. The content of the pagan myths is false, but the content of the Christian Myth is historically true.
3. If item 2 isn’t enough, it is a fairly trivial exercise to demonstrate the many errors and inaccuracies in the stories.
Tell that to Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine and St. Jerome and . . . . They insisted that Bible readers have a duty to explain apparent errors and inaccuracies to show they are not errors and inaccuracies at all, because the Bible is inerrant by virtue of having been inspired by God who cannot err.
To be continued . . .
That’s a misapprehension of the dispute, Pat. It’s not critical/contextual readers vs literal/fundamentalists. It’s modernist biblical speculations vs orthodox Catholicism. (Modernism is proscribed, condemned heresy, by the way.) Orthodox Catholicism not only allows for critical/contextual reading, but requires it – so long as it does not violate the Faith and/or disregard the dictates and principles of the science of Christian biblical exegesis. The belief that Jesus wasn’t really born in Bethlehem both violates the Faith and disregards those dictates and principles.
I understand where literalists are coming from - the story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read each year in the glow of candles and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are very reluctant to question anything related to them.
That may be where some are coming from, but those things don’t enter into it for me, or for the Church. I just look at the Gospels and I see them claiming that Jesus fulfilled the Holy Spirit’s prophecy in Micah that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and then I see some so-called scholars come along and claim that in fact the story that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is a lie, but that the lie is still true even though it is false. Catholicism has no room for the speculation that the Evangelists made up a story about Jesus’ birth merely because Jews expected the Messiah to be born in a certain location. That’s another way of saying that Jesus didn’t really fulfill the Messianic prophecies, which is another way of saying Jesus wasn’t really the Messiah, which is another way of saying Christianity is false. The posts in this thread have made it absolutely clear that the Catholic Church has always upheld and continues to uphold the historicity of the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Saints Matthew and Luke. We aren’t Spongian Episcopalians – we’re Catholics.
1. There is nothing even slightly unCatholic about doubting that the infancy narratives are history. Thre is no requirement or penalty of sin for believing that they are primarily fiction.
Then reconcile that doubt with what the Church teaches.
2. It is a fact that the ancients wrote elaborate and miraculous introductions for stories about famous people to demonstrate their perceived status and elevate their stature. These well-known literary forms are called “infancy narratives” and the stories in Matthew and Luke follow the popular formula exactly.
Yes, but you have to distinguish between literary forms and the content of the literary forms. The content of the pagan myths is false, but the content of the Christian Myth is historically true.
3. If item 2 isn’t enough, it is a fairly trivial exercise to demonstrate the many errors and inaccuracies in the stories.
Tell that to Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine and St. Jerome and . . . . They insisted that Bible readers have a duty to explain apparent errors and inaccuracies to show they are not errors and inaccuracies at all, because the Bible is inerrant by virtue of having been inspired by God who cannot err.
To be continued . . .
M
Melito
Guest
Continued from previous post:
However, there is NO ERROR in the truth they teach which is why the history is so unimportant.
Is the history of Jesus’ Incarnation and Crucifixion and Resurrection and Ascension unimportant? Is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost unimportant? Does it really make no difference whether or not those things really happened?
The Church doesn’t just maintain that the truth taught by the Bible’s supposed historical errors is what is important. The Church maintains that the Bible has no historical errors at all, that when the Bible makes historical affirmations, you can be sure the Bible is correct and anything or anyone else who contradicts the biblical account is in error.
Really, the principle you espouse, that “there is no error in the truth they teach,” is a tautology. All you’re saying is that truth is true. You’re not affirming, however, as the Church affirms, that the Bible’s historical affirmations are true. Rather, you’re saying some of the Bible’s most important historical affirmations are false, but that they communicate truths all the same.
The real argument is whether or not the nativity accounts are history. If they are history, as the Church says they are, then by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, they are true and free from all kinds of error. If they are not history, then the Church is teaching an error, and Jesus isn’t really the Messiah because He didn’t fulfill Micah’s prophecy – St. Matthew lied.
4. Jesus told stories (parables) to teach truths. Do you believe that these were stories of literal history? or do you allow him to use fiction to teach truth?
No one says there isn’t fiction in the Bible. It’s just that the Church has always said the nativity stories are not fiction. I believe what the Church says.
5. Doubting the history does not discredit the truth!!!
I believe that historical accuracy does not affect the truth and that we should concentrate on the message rather than worship the words. I enjoy these discussions mainly because of my life long passion for biblical history and analysis.
In those parts of the Bible that use fiction to teach the truth, we should not try to claim those passages are historical. But in those parts of the Bible that relate history, we should not try to claim those passages are fictional. Denying Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is claiming a historical part of the Bible is fictional.
However, there is NO ERROR in the truth they teach which is why the history is so unimportant.
Is the history of Jesus’ Incarnation and Crucifixion and Resurrection and Ascension unimportant? Is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost unimportant? Does it really make no difference whether or not those things really happened?
The Church doesn’t just maintain that the truth taught by the Bible’s supposed historical errors is what is important. The Church maintains that the Bible has no historical errors at all, that when the Bible makes historical affirmations, you can be sure the Bible is correct and anything or anyone else who contradicts the biblical account is in error.
Really, the principle you espouse, that “there is no error in the truth they teach,” is a tautology. All you’re saying is that truth is true. You’re not affirming, however, as the Church affirms, that the Bible’s historical affirmations are true. Rather, you’re saying some of the Bible’s most important historical affirmations are false, but that they communicate truths all the same.
The real argument is whether or not the nativity accounts are history. If they are history, as the Church says they are, then by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, they are true and free from all kinds of error. If they are not history, then the Church is teaching an error, and Jesus isn’t really the Messiah because He didn’t fulfill Micah’s prophecy – St. Matthew lied.
4. Jesus told stories (parables) to teach truths. Do you believe that these were stories of literal history? or do you allow him to use fiction to teach truth?
No one says there isn’t fiction in the Bible. It’s just that the Church has always said the nativity stories are not fiction. I believe what the Church says.
5. Doubting the history does not discredit the truth!!!
I believe that historical accuracy does not affect the truth and that we should concentrate on the message rather than worship the words. I enjoy these discussions mainly because of my life long passion for biblical history and analysis.
In those parts of the Bible that use fiction to teach the truth, we should not try to claim those passages are historical. But in those parts of the Bible that relate history, we should not try to claim those passages are fictional. Denying Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is claiming a historical part of the Bible is fictional.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Michael C and Carol Marie,
Praise God for your tenacious insistence upon learning true Catholic doctrine versus the “smoke of satan.”
Praise God for your tenacious insistence upon learning true Catholic doctrine versus the “smoke of satan.”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
From the Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal William Baum (1985):
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Patg,
I believe the salient difference is that I’ve not stated opinion, but instead asserted Catholic doctrine. Those who opine that the infancy narratives are “myth” assert opinion contrary to Catholic doctrine.
P
pnewton
Guest
Patg has a valid point here there are very few scriptural interpretations we are required to believe in with Catholic faith.
I heard that the literal existance of Adam and Eve are in this category. I would think that the Epiphany might be a part of divine revelation since it is a major feast day, but then I am no canon lawyer.
However, do not think that those who take a literal approach to scripture are not critical in their thinking. I have seen enough demythologizers proven wrong to approach them with the scepticism of an exit poll.
O
otm
Guest
Part of the troubles with this discussion is the use of the word “myth”. In the context of a scholarly report, it means one thing; in the context of conversations among Christians (some of whom read the scholars’ works and understood it, some of whom read it and didn’t understand it, and many of whom didn’t read it but read an analysis by someone who read it {but may or may not have understood it}, and others who just heard it talked about second hand) the word usually means something else. In common parlance, myth is taken to mean that there is no historical truth in the story. This is not how the scholars generally use the word; so when they refer to a biblical story as a “myth”, meaning that it has a certain historical literary format, their commetns are taken to mean that the story is not historically accurate.
The stories of Christ’s birth can be historically accurate, without being historically accurate as we understand the term in the 21st century concept of history.
To posit an example: The biblical writer could be using a convention of speech, meaning that one (or both) parents were physically from Bethlehem, or made their abode in Bethlehem, or their geneological line was from Bethlehem (e.g. I call myself Dutch, because of my maternal lineage back to my great great grandparents who came from Holland). If, then, the biblical writer says that the “Child was born in Behtlehem”, and the people of the time knew that meant he was “from Bethlehem”, and the ancient prophets had the same meaning to their statements, then the child was born in bethlehem, whether Mary was physically in an inn a mile away from whatever might have been considered to be the city limits, or she was in Jericho, or she was in the third straw hut to the east of the road from Jerusalem to Nazareth, in the town called Bethlehem, on the south side of said town. All of these could be historically accurate, depending on what or how the writer understood “history” to be.
The stories of Christ’s birth can be historically accurate, without being historically accurate as we understand the term in the 21st century concept of history.
To posit an example: The biblical writer could be using a convention of speech, meaning that one (or both) parents were physically from Bethlehem, or made their abode in Bethlehem, or their geneological line was from Bethlehem (e.g. I call myself Dutch, because of my maternal lineage back to my great great grandparents who came from Holland). If, then, the biblical writer says that the “Child was born in Behtlehem”, and the people of the time knew that meant he was “from Bethlehem”, and the ancient prophets had the same meaning to their statements, then the child was born in bethlehem, whether Mary was physically in an inn a mile away from whatever might have been considered to be the city limits, or she was in Jericho, or she was in the third straw hut to the east of the road from Jerusalem to Nazareth, in the town called Bethlehem, on the south side of said town. All of these could be historically accurate, depending on what or how the writer understood “history” to be.
M
Michael_C
Guest
OTM, I’m not sure I understand. You mean if it’s not exactly historically accurate it can be called a myth? A myth is not something totally false historically?
P
pnewton
Guest
Michael C:
Maybe we will meet the real Lazarus (as in Lazarus and the rich man) in heaven.
A myth is not necessarily false, in the sense it is used by theologians. The term refers to a literary device. As a parallel, the parable may or may not be a true story. Two thousand years later it is not always clear what genre is being used. I just find it hard to believe it took 20th century intellectuals to look back and see passages as myths when Christians much closer chronologically did not.
Maybe we will meet the real Lazarus (as in Lazarus and the rich man) in heaven.
P
patg
Guest
Determining “those parts of the bible” is obviously what we disagree on. I see no reason to accept the infancy narratives as history and every reason not to.
Fortunately, whether they are history or not has no bearing on my relationship with God and there is no requirement that anyone follow only the literal path.
Pat
M
Melito
Guest
I see no reason to accept the infancy narratives as history and every reason not to.
Even though the Church says they are history, and even though there is no evidence that they are not history, and even though the earliest Christians treated them as history . . . .
Fortunately, whether they are history or not has no bearing on my relationship with God and there is no requirement that anyone follow only the literal path.
Whether or not Jesus is the Messiah does have the greatest bearing on our relationship with God. If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem as St. Matthew said, then the Bible has related a falsehood, and Jesus didn’t fulfill Micah’s prophecy, meaning He is not the Messiah.
Why don’t certain Catholics just accept what the Church teaches about the nativity accounts? What is gained by denying their historicity? We know what is lost by denying their historicity, but what could be gained?
Even though the Church says they are history, and even though there is no evidence that they are not history, and even though the earliest Christians treated them as history . . . .
Fortunately, whether they are history or not has no bearing on my relationship with God and there is no requirement that anyone follow only the literal path.
Whether or not Jesus is the Messiah does have the greatest bearing on our relationship with God. If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem as St. Matthew said, then the Bible has related a falsehood, and Jesus didn’t fulfill Micah’s prophecy, meaning He is not the Messiah.
Why don’t certain Catholics just accept what the Church teaches about the nativity accounts? What is gained by denying their historicity? We know what is lost by denying their historicity, but what could be gained?
M
Melito
Guest
If, then, the biblical writer says that the “Child was born in Behtlehem”, and the people of the time knew that meant he was “from Bethlehem”, and the ancient prophets had the same meaning to their statements, then the child was born in bethlehem, whether Mary was physically in an inn a mile away from whatever might have been considered to be the city limits, or she was in Jericho, or she was in the third straw hut to the east of the road from Jerusalem to Nazareth, in the town called Bethlehem, on the south side of said town.
Wow. What a stretch. So, what reason to we have to believe that Jews in the first century A.D. didn’t know the difference between “born in Bethlehem” and “belonging to a family that had once lived in Bethlehem a thousand years previously”?
What’s the point of going through all this trouble of finding some way for the Gospel to be simultaneously true and false, when we can just believe that it is true and be done with it? The Catholic Church certainly would like us to just believe the nativity accounts are true and historical, so you’d think a Catholic would save himself the fruitless effort.
Wow. What a stretch. So, what reason to we have to believe that Jews in the first century A.D. didn’t know the difference between “born in Bethlehem” and “belonging to a family that had once lived in Bethlehem a thousand years previously”?
What’s the point of going through all this trouble of finding some way for the Gospel to be simultaneously true and false, when we can just believe that it is true and be done with it? The Catholic Church certainly would like us to just believe the nativity accounts are true and historical, so you’d think a Catholic would save himself the fruitless effort.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Pope John Paul II, in his series of audiences on Genesis, on November 7, 1979:
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time. Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was born at a time of subjection–namely, when the whole world, as it were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting time
Reply to Objection 1. Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii, 4,5), “He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar’s census, and thus submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty.” Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler, peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the birth of Christ, for “He is our peace, who hath made both one,” as it is written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: “If we search the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased”; according to Is. 2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nationObjection 2. Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not made to the Gentiles; according to Rm. 9:4: “To whom belong . . . the promises.” But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as appears from Mt. 2:1: “When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod.” Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting timeReply to Objection 2. Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10): “The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come that is to be sent.” Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm”]Chrysostom), as long as the Jewish "people was governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician
Reply to Objection 1. Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii, 4,5), “He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar’s census, and thus submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty.” Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler, peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the birth of Christ, for “He is our peace, who hath made both one,” as it is written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: “If we search the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased”; according to Is. 2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nationObjection 2. Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not made to the Gentiles; according to Rm. 9:4: “To whom belong . . . the promises.” But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as appears from Mt. 2:1: “When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod.” Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting timeReply to Objection 2. Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10): “The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come that is to be sent.” Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm”]Chrysostom), as long as the Jewish "people was governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician
- Status