Transfiguration made up?

[Tmaque]

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?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m going to hope that this poor person really was saying something slightly different that simply got misinterpreted, because it certainly is not authentic Catholic teaching.

“Homilist”? Was this a priest or deacon? If a deacon, you could ask him (with a cc to the priest) why he said this.

If a priest, you could ask him why he said this, and then ask your bishop to ‘clarify’.

No, the transfiguration was not ‘made up’. It’s extremely clear in Scripture that it was a ‘prefiguring’ of Christ’s glory which He allowed Peter, James and John to see in order to help their faith through the coming trial of His passion, death and resurrection.

You’re right. . .it’s extremely disturbing that somebody made such statements and it needs to be ‘nipped in the bud’ and authentic and correct teaching needs to get out there STAT!

 

[NHInsider]

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?

That is distressing. Sounds like your homilist has fallen into the trap of the branch of historical criticism that assumes that there is a complete disconnect between “the Jesus of History” and “the Christ of Faith.” Which is, of course, heretical nonsense and has largely fallen out of fashion, besides. . . . but there was a time when it was considered so very uncool to still believe in miracles.

You could write to your bishop, someone might check up on the guy.

 

[Tmaque]

It was the deacon and I did not misunderstand him. He gave a long explanation regarding why it was a made up story. The priest was right there and did not correct him in any way. I plan to ask the priest why this occurred and what can be done about it.

 

[Tmaque]

Hey Tantum,

I noticed we joined CAF within two days of each other nearly 6 years ago. You obviously have more free time than I do however.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hey Tantum,

I noticed we joined CAF within two days of each other nearly 6 years ago. You obviously have more free time than I do however.

LOL, you’d think that post-wise. It’s a good thing I can type rapidly, that’s the secret.

 

[rocketrob]

You may also want to take along the Dogmatic Constitution
on Divine Revelation (DEI VERBUM) from Vatican II:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven…(DV paragraph 19)

rocketrob

 

[Edwardjohn]

It was the deacon and I did not misunderstand him. He gave a long explanation regarding why it was a made up story. The priest was right there and did not correct him in any way. I plan to ask the priest why this occurred and what can be done about it.

Well, both of them will know the truth when they go to meet the Lord. That would be interesting to witness.

 

[patg]

There is no domatic reason to believe it actually occured and it is the type of thing that would naturally be inserted by the author in their attempt to show how great Jesus was, very similar to the mostly fictional infancy narratives. It is certainly “true” but it is not necessarily the retelling of an actual event. Nowhere does Dei Verbum require us to believe in the literal historicity of the of every gospel story.

I am a little surprised the priest would bring up such a thing out of the blue as it can be unsettling to those not well versed in the church’s documents on scripture study.

 

[simspt]

There is no domatic reason to believe it actually occured and it is the type of thing that would naturally be inserted by the author in their attempt to show how great Jesus was, very similar to the mostly fictional infancy narratives. It is certainly “true” but it is not necessarily the retelling of an actual event. Nowhere does Dei Verbum require us to believe in the literal historicity of the of every gospel story.

I am a little surprised the priest would bring up such a thing out of the blue as it can be unsettling to those not well versed in the church’s documents on scripture study.

PAT,
What are some of the arguments against the literal event of the transfiguration. I havent done my homework on this one. Is it the silence of the event in other books?? Brown mentions it but doesnt elaborate in critical meaning or at least not to my understanding. I agree it seems a little strange to be bringing it up in the context of a homily vs. bible study etc.

 

[Crumpy]

Here we go again, with naive historical criticism of scripture.

 

[Fidelis]

Nowhere does Dei Verbum require us to believe in the literal historicity of the of every gospel story.

I would have to respectfully disagree. While that may be more or less true about some of the Old Testament stories, the Gospels are an entirely different matter, as rocketrob’s quote from DV makes quite clear:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven…(DV paragraph 19)

Besides, if we were to fall into the trap of parsing which of the Gospel stories were literally true and which ones weren’t, how far do you go? Which ones were and which ones weren’t? Who’s to decide the criteria for deciding and who decides which story (if any) makes the final cut? Me? You? The Jesus Seminar?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it a tad unsettling that nearly 2000 years ‘later’ (during which time period Scripture was accepted by all Christians as being historically true within the confines of the Jewish literary tradition) we suddenly have a group of “scholars” who dance around the idea such that they remind me of the old Red Skelton joke. . .where he, serving in the Army, was heard to bellow upon taking a drink of water, “Hey, somebody put some water in the chlorine!”

That joke was funny because of course we know that in drinking water which has been ‘treated’ for potability, the vast majority of the liquid is water, and the chemicals are but a tiny proportion of the whole.

Now, the Jewish literary tradition (which was very specific) was a very ‘tiny’ proportion of the whole. The earlier writers of the OT were not necessarily concerned with blind ‘statistics’. . .but that doesn’t mean that because they used a poetic ‘figuring’ that somehow all the writers in the NT would not only use ‘exaggeration’ or even falsehood in an attempt to ‘make a better story’!! The writers in the OT did **not **use the literary devices to ‘make a more convincing story’ . . .they used them because as writers of the time and period they were able to do so to express a truth which (being the OT) was necessarily to be ‘veiled’ until the fulfilment by Christ.

Looking at the writers and traditions of the first century AD we see that far from the ‘exaggerations’ that were used not only in Jewish but in all "western’ writers (see Homer), writers were more inclined both to ‘statistics’ (see Caesar’s Commentaries) and to clear, crisp prose which used actual events without exaggeration and relied on dialogue and on factual evidence presented to bolster the point (see Cicero’s works).

The ‘scholars’ of the Jesus Seminar illustrate Pope’s dictum that "A little learning is a dangerous thing’. In an attempt to present their **theories as **truth, they subtly emphasize, redirect, or outright ignore what doesn’t ‘fit’ their theories, and blandly offer as ‘fact’ their opinions and interpretations as ‘gospel true.’

I’ve waited my 40 years in the wilderness for the return of the Latin Mass and it has come to pass. I have little doubt that what (small) bit of enlightenment came through the JS (and in SPITE of their very apparent bias and twisted miseries) will also remain while within the next decade or so we’ll see a swift end to the convoluted craziness which attempts to yank “Jesus the man who never did a miracle, never died, never rose, but was just such a ‘special’ person for his social JUSTICE” from “Jesus the Christ”, God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, who suffered, died and rose from the dead and who performed signs and wonders for us through His great kindness and mercy.

I think most of us prefer the reality of Jesus the Christ to the pseudohippie invented Jesus the Man. Old heresies might like to dress themselves in new tie-dye but they were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

 

[JimG]

The homilist was wrong.

 

[simspt]

Here we go again, with naive historical criticism of scripture.

This historical-critical method of studying scripture to my understanding in and of itself is somewhat neutral but those who employ it all have presuppositions obviously and some are very honest about this, some aren’t. From my understanding the Pope has acknowledged its usefulness while simultaneously warned against its misuse. I agree with you there are naive presuppositions held by liberal scholars (ie who hold materialist world views) who project their own beliefs and biases onto Jesus the Jew who lived in the first third of the first century. These scholars are typically anti-Church and anti-miracle. There are also very talented Catholic and Protestant scholars who employ it responsibly who are more objective with the data (100% objectivity is impossible).

 

[dnu]

haha

The Jesus Seminar makes me laugh. They may as well be Buddhists.

 

[simspt]

I think most of us prefer the reality of Jesus the Christ to the pseudohippie invented Jesus the Man. Old heresies might like to dress themselves in new tie-dye but they were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

I think if Jesus the man had limited knowledge (self imposed) while on earth, this makes the creator of the universe that much more incredible and loving to his creation instead of diminishing his power.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There is no domatic reason to believe it actually occured and it is the type of thing that would naturally be inserted by the author in their attempt to show how great Jesus was, very similar to the mostly fictional infancy narratives. It is certainly “true” but it is not necessarily the retelling of an actual event. Nowhere does Dei Verbum require us to believe in the literal historicity of the of every gospel story.

I am a little surprised the priest would bring up such a thing out of the blue as it can be unsettling to those not well versed in the church’s documents on scripture study.

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.

 

[Fidelis]

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.

Oooh! I LOVE that quote. The more I see from Pope Paul VI, the more he becomes one of my favorite Popes!

 

[patg]

I would have to respectfully disagree. While that may be more or less true about some of the Old Testament stories, the Gospels are an entirely different matter, as rocketrob’s quote from DV makes quite clear:

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.

Besides, if we were to fall into the trap of parsing which of the Gospel stories were literally true and which ones weren’t, how far do you go?

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.

Which ones were and which ones weren’t?

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.

Who’s to decide the criteria for deciding and who decides which story (if any) makes the final cut? Me? You? The Jesus Seminar?

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 you don’t understand the literary form of stories, you are definitely missing something. Unless the imprimatur, the nihil obstat, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and various popes mean nothing, this is all valid reasoning.