Transfiguration made up?

[simspt]

For most, it doesn’t matter as long as you understand the truth being expressed. The church has exactly categorized the few events you must literally believed in.

PATG
Which events are these that must be believed literally?
What are your reasons for not believing in the literal Transfiguration if that indeed is your position?

 

[crazzeto]

At Mass yesterday the homilist said the transfiguration didn’t really occur and that the apostles made the story up at a later date. I found this very disturbing. Can anyone tell me if this has happened elsewhere and if so, why would our seminaries teach such a thing to our priests and deacons?

This “teaching” is purly heretical, who was this homilist? I would first start by having a conversation with them to see if what you understood is actually what they were trying to say. God willing, this was just a big miscommunication. But if that’s not the case, I would have some further communcation with them (I might brush up on the subject first, the Popes Jesus of Nazereth would be a great start, just read the transfiguration) and see if he can’t be swayed back to authentic teaching.

If not, I would only then start considering contating whoever their immediate superior is.

 

[Fidelis]

I would have to respectfully disagree. When you read the whole paragraph containing the quote and also consider it in the context of the whole document, things aren’t nearly so black and white.

With all due respect, patg, in context with the rest of the document it still means exactly what it says. Nothing else in the document qualifies or nullifies this section’s point of emphasis as it concerns the New Testament.

Why is it a trap to understand that fiction is a valid mechanism for teaching the truths of revelation? As long as you understand the truths being taught by the Infancy Narratives, various miracles, the transfiguration, etc, it doesn’t matter at all if they literally occured.

It is a trap because, unlike the Old Testament, certain miracles of Jesus in the New Testament have a direct influence on the truths of our salvation --especially those miracles revealing the identity and nature of Jesus, and of his Resurrection and Ascencion. If they really didn’t happen, there is no indication that Jesus was not different that anyone else, and that we ourselves have no objective basis for faith in him. If everything in the NT is merely symbolic or pious reflection, I’d say to hell with the whole thing and become a Buddhist.

For most, it doesn’t matter as long as you understand the truth being expressed…

…Since the church has only dogmatically declared a small handful of them as events we must believe in, you can go as far as you want. If your faith says they are all literal history, that is just as fine as saying that most are fictional accounts teaching the truth about Jesus.

…If your faith says they are all literal history, that is just as fine as saying that most are fictional accounts teaching the truth about Jesus. If

I disagree, I would say, in fact, that I (and most thinking people) would find that an acceptable credential for only fairy tales… If it didn’t happen in the first place, it doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not.

*The church has exactly categorized the few events you must literally believed in…

…Since the church has only dogmatically declared a small handful of them as events we must believe in, you can go as far as you want.
*

I would love to see the official catalog, if you wouldn’t mind sharing it.

If you don’t understand the literary form of stories, you are definitely missing something.

I don’t think anybody denies that the Scriptures use various literary devices in the manner which it recounts certain stories, altering the sequence of events to provide context, highlighting the relationship to previous people, places and events, etc. However, that is much different than saying we don’t have to believe they happened, especially when it comes to the miracles of Jesus. To reduce the events and actions of his life to literary devices is more than just “missing something”-- it’s missing almost everything.

Unless the imprimatur, the nihil obstat, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and various popes mean nothing, this is all valid reasoning.

They do mean something , of course (although in recent years the imprimatur, the nihil obstat have come to mean less and less-- so much so that many orthodox and excellent books do not bother to obtain them these days). As for the PBC and the Popes – I don’t recall any of them saying we don’t have to believe in the miracles of Jesus. Agan, if you have these resources, I would appreciate if you could share them.

 

[patg]

With all due respect, patg, in context with the rest of the document it still means exactly what it says. Nothing else in the document qualifies or nullifies this section’s point of emphasis as it concerns the New Testament.

Well first we have the phrase “historical character” which does not exactly nail things down. I have read a great many novels (such as Bernard Cornwell’s - really good stuff!) which are entirely full of “historical character” and yet which contain a great deal of believable fiction. I agree the gospels are based on some historical core of events but that hardly requires belief in the literal historicity of every one of them.

Then we have the qualifier “for their eternal salvation”, which would be totally unnecessary if it were not needed to explicitly limit the requirements for belief. If the church required literal belief in every story, the sentence would have ended with “what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught.” Of course the resurrection, institution of sacraments, the establishment of the church, and the Eucharist must be literally believed as they are integral events for our “eternal salvation”. The church tells us this in numerous documents and creeds. However, changing water into wine and other such stories, while they are useful tools (and possible inventions of the author) for telling us who Jesus was, they are not something which must be believed for eternal salvation. If so, these micacles would be mentioned in the same documents and creeds as the resurrection.

I disagree, I would say, in fact, that I (and most thinking people) would find that an acceptable credential for only fairy tales… If it didn’t happen in the first place, it doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not.

Then apparantly you deny that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation and you deny the human authors the right to express the inspired truths in fiction. I think fiction is often a much better teaching tool than trying to use a “true” story. AND, the gospels* were* primarily “teaching tools”, not first person accounts as is stated in the document Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels.

 

[Fidelis]

Well first we have the phrase “historical character” which does not exactly nail things down. I have read a great many novels (such as Bernard Cornwell’s - really good stuff!) which are entirely full of “historical character” and yet which contain a great deal of believable fiction.

The difference here, of course, is that when you read Cornwell, you are fully cognizant of the fact that the book is of a particular genre: that of historical fiction. The Gospel accounts, while not history books in the modern sense, were also not anything like historical fiction in our modern sense (Gospels belonging to a unique genre of their own) and there’s no indication that the first hearers or readers of the Gospels regarded them in this way. In fact, most of the early Church Fathers clearly took them as literal accounts.

I agree the gospels are based on some historical core of events but that hardly requires belief in the literal historicity of every one of them.

Nor does the fact that the Gospels have a ‘literal core’ necessitate a critical approach to the Gospel stories. The key, as I mentioned above, is to take them in a literal (though not literalistic) sense, i.e. how they were meant to (and in fact, were) be understood by the original audience.

Then we have the qualifier “for their eternal salvation”, which would be totally unnecessary if it were not needed to explicitly limit the requirements for belief. If the church required literal belief in every story, the sentence would have ended with “what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught.” Of course the resurrection, institution of sacraments, the establishment of the church, and the Eucharist must be literally believed as they are integral events for our “eternal salvation”. The church tells us this in numerous documents and creeds. However, changing water into wine and other such stories, while they are useful tools (and possible inventions of the author) for telling us who Jesus was, they are not something which must be believed for eternal salvation.

As you must know, this particular phrase (“for their eternal salvation”) in DV has been the subject of much debate, most of it centering on the shoddiness of the translation from the original Latin of the document to English. Critical scholars (notably, the late Raymond Brown, may he rest in peace) have used this passage to try and take a minimalist approach to Sacred Scripture-- an approach that has no grounding in what the Catechism calls “the analogy of faith” and scriptural exegesis has it has practiced from patristic times.

This analysis may help to refresh your memory on this controversy:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/deiverbum.html

If so, these micacles would be mentioned in the same documents and creeds as the resurrection.

The Creeds, as we know, were constructed and established to combat particular heresies and clarify disputed Church teachings, not to function as a sort of minimalist catechism of the whole faith.

Then apparantly you deny that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation and you deny the human authors the right to express the inspired truths in fiction.

That is not my position at all, as I have made clear in my previous posts (though I would not use the word ‘fiction’ as it implies something like Cornwell or even “The DaVinci Code”. The correct term for the technique that the Gospel writers employed is “literary device”).

 

[patg]

The difference here, of course, is that when you read Cornwell, you are fully cognizant of the fact that the book is of a particular genre: that of historical fiction.

That is true only because historical fiction is a very common genre to most of us - we are very aware of what it is and what it is not - all without having a big up front explanation. The genre is undestood by us but it probably would not automatically be if read by someone 2000 years ago… Gospels, however are not a common genre for us and we can not assume everything is history, even if it sounds like it is (as mentioned in Dei Verbum).

The Gospel accounts, while not history books in the modern sense, were also not anything like historical fiction in our modern sense (Gospels belonging to a unique genre of their own) and there’s no indication that the first hearers or readers of the Gospels regarded them in this way. In fact, most of the early Church Fathers clearly took them as literal accounts…

But most of those early Church Fathers were reading documents long after they were written and they were written long after the events occured. We can assume what they thought but that is all we can do.

Nor does the fact that the Gospels have a ‘literal core’ necessitate a critical approach to the Gospel stories. The key, as I mentioned above, is to take them in a literal (though not literalistic) sense, i.e. how they were meant to (and in fact, were) be understood by the original audience.

That is very true but we must remember that the original audience was of a time accustomed to seeing gods, goddesses, and demons actively working in every physical event. Miracles weren’t necessarily a big deal and there were numerous Jewish “holy men” who also performed nature and healing miracles.

As you must know, this particular phrase (“for their eternal salvation”) in DV has been the subject of much debate, most of it centering on the shoddiness of the translation from the original Latin of the document to English. Critical scholars (notably, the late Raymond Brown, may he rest in peace) have used this passage to try and take a minimalist approach to Sacred Scripture-- an approach that has no grounding in what the Catechism calls “the analogy of faith” and scriptural exegesis has it has practiced from patristic times.

Yes, I am afully aware of this and I just thank God that this phrase is there.

The Creeds, as we know, were constructed and established to combat particular heresies and clarify disputed Church teachings, not to function as a sort of minimalist catechism of the whole faith.

Yes, I am also aware of this and was just noting that the belief is everything Jesus did is not mentioned,

That is not my position at all, as I have made clear in my previous posts (though I would not use the word ‘fiction’ as it implies something like Cornwell or even “The DaVinci Code”. The correct term for the technique that the Gospel writers employed is “literary device”).

I agree. There are many forms of truth besides historical truth and many ways in which teachings about Jesus were formulated - “…they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners, they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches, …and expressed his sayings not literally but differently”.

 

[simspt]

What are the arguments used against the historicity of the Transfiguration?

 

[mary1173]

Of course the Transfiguration occurred! This is a misapplication of the historical-critical method, which Pope Paul II warned about in 1964 in “The Historicity of the Gospels”

Some proponents of this method, motivated by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to recognize the existence of a supernatural order. They deny the intervention of a personal God in the world by means of Revelation in the strict sense, and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth. Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself.

All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method.

They deny that miracles occur, or that Jesus performed miracles. They either make up alternative explanations for the miracles of Jesus (the feeding of the 5000 was about sharing, people there had hidden food and Jesus convinced them to share, etc.), or if they can’t think up an alternative explanation, they just claim that it never happened, it was inserted as a literary device (Transfiguration, infancy narratives, etc.)

They seem to think that God can’t act outside of their preconceived, rationalistic laws of science - as if the God that created the Universe out of nothing would have trouble causing a virgin to become pregnant (no, they say, that’s scientifically impossible).

Even the people that believe that the miracles in the Bible are fiction, midrash, or whatever they call it - amongst themselves they always caution each other not to talk that way to general audiences, because they’ll be misunderstood - so I’m surprised to hear that it was preached in a homily.

You took the words right out of my mouth…I couldn’t have expressed it better myself!