S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No one has suggested it was.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
spirit - how do you feel about the encyclical I posted?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The sad thing in all this is that it appears that most have not read a serious scholarly examination of the Gospels. Apologetics are wonderful and useful but they are meant to convey something quite a bit different that a scholarly examination of the texts. What is sadder is that much of the work that is condemned here by ultra conservatives is done by Catholics. It is the basis for most catechesis in this country. Most of the material I’ve seen, and I’ves seen 4 different sets of catetechical material in 4 parishes now, assumes that such things as Creation and the nativity narratives are mytholigized accounts. They are meant, and do present important theological truths about God and Jesus.The 4 Gospel writers surely believed that Jesus was both God and man. They believed it was crucified and died for our sins, and that he rose again and ascended into heaven. They were not writing history texts however. They were attempting to relate Jesus to the audience before them, facing differernt situations, being from different cultures, and facting different dangers. The various Gospels were written with the intend to address these issues. They did present some things in ways that helped to convince. There was NO understanding in that day of the rigors we now expect in historical writing. Truthiness was not the main issue.
We can go round and round but if people want to adher to a literalist interpretaion they are free to do so. It is not as best i can discern, my priest can discern, the sisters I work with can discern, the teaching of the Church. The Church may not agree with everything that comes from the mouth of any scholar, but it doesn’t prevent their work, and it endorces much of it. As with all disciplines of study, what we know today may not be what we accept tomorrow. As better techniques become available, and as more texts are found, we may alter a good deal of what we believe. Or perhaps we will change nothing.
The point is no matter what is said, the work of attempting to learn as much as possible about Jesus and his world will continue.
We can go round and round but if people want to adher to a literalist interpretaion they are free to do so. It is not as best i can discern, my priest can discern, the sisters I work with can discern, the teaching of the Church. The Church may not agree with everything that comes from the mouth of any scholar, but it doesn’t prevent their work, and it endorces much of it. As with all disciplines of study, what we know today may not be what we accept tomorrow. As better techniques become available, and as more texts are found, we may alter a good deal of what we believe. Or perhaps we will change nothing.
The point is no matter what is said, the work of attempting to learn as much as possible about Jesus and his world will continue.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I don’t think that trying to turn this conversation into a modernist vs tranditionalist argument is fruitful. This encyclical is in excess of 100 years old. It is in response to the claims of the enlightenment which I would agree were a secular response to the world. Their desire to remove God from public discourse was teh motivation for the Church’s digging in its heels…and probably correct at the time.
The encyclical doesn’t really speak to what its own Catholic scholars are now doing.
When we discuss these issues, most of the time we are cited to documents or persons who had no knowledge in their time of the methodology now available to us. They assumed a number of things no doubt that were not correct, simply because they had no tools with which to investigate.
I’m sorry this is so threatening to some of you. It certainly doesnt upset any of our catechumens. In fact, one of the first questions we get are concerns that Catholicism doesnt’ believe in a literal creationism. The darn fundies are so loud, that lots of folks think all Christians believe this. It’s disheartening to know how many never come to the Church because they think we believe this.
The fact is, I am reassured when JPII and Benedict make statements which cannot be otherwise interpreted than that they basically adhere to what science has uncovered. They are a bit less likely to admit the same about some exegesis to be sure, but when I see JPII asserting clearly that there were 2 creation stories, and naming the traditions they arose from, and which was older, I’m greatly relieved. Both “In the beginning…” and the “Theology of the Body” are by far more important documents I believe than some of the old encyclicals trotted out today. Most were addressing a quite different problem in my opinion.
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s pretty much what the pope said you would say.
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
We don’t alter what we believe as Catholics based on some new technique of radio carbon dating, or some new manuscript find, no matter how many old sisters down at the Newman Center you might get to agree with you.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Somebody should “declare victory” and move on. 
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You’re being rather naive if you don’t think our understanding of scripture has continued to improve over the centuries. “We” continue to increase in our understanding. Do you really think that Pope Pius XII should have told the vatican astronomer not to look through that thing because we might have to rearrange our thinking about some things? Why must we continue with apologist dialogue between Catholics?
P
patg
Guest
But why keep insisting that the moral and spiritual Truth in the inspired scriptures requires that the writings be considered literalistically historic? The teachings have nothing to do with teaching us history and everything to do with teaching our relationship with God. Authors from the beginning of time have used their writing skills and imaginations to teach truth with powerful fiction. To deny the biblical authors, and thus God, the right to do this is an attitude the Church has been steadily moving away from. More thoroughly understanding the truth by understanding a fictional literary form is not *destroying *anything. Rather, it is a very positive thing and I am thrilled that the Church is recognizing and encouraging this.
I understand how it can feel to doubt the historicity - 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, decorated trees, bourbon, 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.
But doubting the history does not discredit the truth
A
adrift
Guest
A
adrift
Guest
The sad thing is a failure to realize that people can read the same thing and come away with a different point of view and than assume that they must not have read it because they don’t agree with your view point.
P
patg
Guest
I keep getting the sense that the non-historical ideas are considered to be something really unusual, suspect, different, radical, non-mainstream, a temporary phase, etc… I have found that this attitude is really only prevalent among a very few Catholics. For at least 25 years my very conservative diocese has taught the very ideas I and several others have been presenting as church teaching. Almost every year we have offered a seminar on the Infancy Narratives as fiction in most parishes and it has been a popular and well received program. The now-retired director of adult religious education is the author of the textbook on modern scripture analysis which is used in many parts of the country in adult scripture studies.
You mention “what we believe as catholics” as if the Church has issued dogmatic statements enforcing belief in the historicity of the birth accounts, which it certainly has not. What it has released are Instructions, scholarly books, and a Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation which require us to consider the literary form and non-literal nature of scripture.
T
TOME
Guest
The more I read all that has been written the more I wonder whether or not those of us who are of the conservative attitude really do read what we who are more liberal in our approach actually write or if they understand what was written or maybe it’s a matter of both.
Forgive me for putting it this way but when I read the responses of some of the things I wrote I cannot help but come to this conclusion and worse I it seems to me that this is like trying to have a conversation with a fundalmentalist protestant on Catholics veneration of Mary. No matter how often we try to tell a protestant we do not worship Mary they just do not believe it. And
here when I and it looks like others who have similar understanding of scripture or modern scripture scholarship the conservative reaction is the same - disbelief.
From what I have inferred from these post is a “all or nothing” attitude of conservatives. The conservative attitude seems to be we either accept all of the infancy narratives as actual historical data or we reject all of what was written by Matthew and Mark as false. Is it so hard to understand that many of us do not deny the historicity of the Narratives while at the same time accept that these documents cannot be seen as historical documents in the 20th/21St century way of thinking? Is it so hard to accept that scientific studies have shown that in ancient times people wrote differently than they do today and that their mode of writting history also incorporated allegories and myths, poetry and other literary divices not did not just keep to “The Facts”. Is it so hard to comprehend that some of us believe that just because the infancy narrative may not be completely historical in today’s sense of the word, none the less, what they do convey is REAL?
Isn’t this fact that the modes of writing history were so different then than they are today that Pope Pius XII freely acknowledge this in Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Paul VI understood this as reflected in the 1964 address to the PBC, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) understood this in their writings as well? I think it has been pointed out several times that Popes John Paul II and Benedict not only acknowledged this but incorporated this understanding in their own writings.
I have seen to often now in what I know is a sincere effort on the parts of those conservatives present to defend the teachings of the Church, however, too often this defense betrays, in my opinion, an appreciating that the Church’s teachings are not stagnant but are always developing. I don’t think we do justice to the teaching authority of the Church to attemp to defend against an attitude that first is not present by quoting either encycles from over 100 years ago, or taking selected passages from comtemporay writings of the popes and not placing them in the fuller context of the continuing development of the Church’s understanding and teachings on scripture and scriptural studies.
The post containing the encyclical letter of Pope Pius X on the doctrines of Modernist or passages from Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus seems to be ends on to themselves and fails to see them in the light of being part of an organic whole in the Church’s development. Consider the fact that in Pius XII 's Divino Afflante Spiritu our Holy Father acknowledged the fact that much had changed since Leo XII wrote his encycle and that the Church needed to adapt to the new knowledge that was available in her studies of scripture and this growing knowledge and the Church’s need to use such knowledge was also reflected in Dei Verbum. But each never disregarded the previous Church teachings, rather, id build upon them - again each must be understood as a part of a living organic whole.
Forgive me for putting it this way but when I read the responses of some of the things I wrote I cannot help but come to this conclusion and worse I it seems to me that this is like trying to have a conversation with a fundalmentalist protestant on Catholics veneration of Mary. No matter how often we try to tell a protestant we do not worship Mary they just do not believe it. And
here when I and it looks like others who have similar understanding of scripture or modern scripture scholarship the conservative reaction is the same - disbelief.
From what I have inferred from these post is a “all or nothing” attitude of conservatives. The conservative attitude seems to be we either accept all of the infancy narratives as actual historical data or we reject all of what was written by Matthew and Mark as false. Is it so hard to understand that many of us do not deny the historicity of the Narratives while at the same time accept that these documents cannot be seen as historical documents in the 20th/21St century way of thinking? Is it so hard to accept that scientific studies have shown that in ancient times people wrote differently than they do today and that their mode of writting history also incorporated allegories and myths, poetry and other literary divices not did not just keep to “The Facts”. Is it so hard to comprehend that some of us believe that just because the infancy narrative may not be completely historical in today’s sense of the word, none the less, what they do convey is REAL?
Isn’t this fact that the modes of writing history were so different then than they are today that Pope Pius XII freely acknowledge this in Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Paul VI understood this as reflected in the 1964 address to the PBC, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) understood this in their writings as well? I think it has been pointed out several times that Popes John Paul II and Benedict not only acknowledged this but incorporated this understanding in their own writings.
I have seen to often now in what I know is a sincere effort on the parts of those conservatives present to defend the teachings of the Church, however, too often this defense betrays, in my opinion, an appreciating that the Church’s teachings are not stagnant but are always developing. I don’t think we do justice to the teaching authority of the Church to attemp to defend against an attitude that first is not present by quoting either encycles from over 100 years ago, or taking selected passages from comtemporay writings of the popes and not placing them in the fuller context of the continuing development of the Church’s understanding and teachings on scripture and scriptural studies.
The post containing the encyclical letter of Pope Pius X on the doctrines of Modernist or passages from Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus seems to be ends on to themselves and fails to see them in the light of being part of an organic whole in the Church’s development. Consider the fact that in Pius XII 's Divino Afflante Spiritu our Holy Father acknowledged the fact that much had changed since Leo XII wrote his encycle and that the Church needed to adapt to the new knowledge that was available in her studies of scripture and this growing knowledge and the Church’s need to use such knowledge was also reflected in Dei Verbum. But each never disregarded the previous Church teachings, rather, id build upon them - again each must be understood as a part of a living organic whole.
P
patg
Guest
Thanks, that about sums it up for me too.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
What… you do not deny the historicity of the Narratives? So you think there were really wise men who followed a star? Or you mean something else… like you accept that Jesus was born?
I don’t think any of the conservatives care about whether modern historians see them as historical documents. We’re talking about whether the events in the stories really happened.
Maybe if you want us to understand you should make it really plain, and say whether there were 3 wise men who followed a star to bethlehem and gave homage to the baby Jesus or not. You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too, saying you believe it but you don’t, then you wonder why we get confused.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Yup!
T
TOME
Guest
#132 continued) The Church is may cautious but she is not reactionary. Just because something is “new” doesn’t necessarily make it better but neither does it mean it is not usefull. However, I still cannot understand how so many look on the methods of modern scriptural studies as something new for one thing, and how anyone, with a real knowledge of what the Church actually uses (again I refer to the writings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, theologians such as Romano Guardini, Yves Congar, Jean Danielou, Avery Dulles and Hans von Bathlasar) as something that was condemned as Modernist? Yet, not only here but in other threads this is what I see.
I am sure by now there are some here who are scanning the works of these men to fine sentences they wrote attacking the abuses of modern biblical scholarship but this begs the question of what the true benefits of contemporary scholarship are.
For me, and perhaps a few other, what bothers me most of those who have been approaching the infancy narratives as literal narrations of the events as they actually happened is the conviction that by doing such we miss much of the richness of this and all scripture. Let me give you an example. An referance was made to John Paul II’s “Ttheology of the Body” which made me ask the question how much would have the beauty of this work been lost were it not for modern biblical scholarship? If we were to take those three chapters of Genesis just from a literal understanding would this have lessen the ability of Pope John Paul to write what he did? Or consider Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and what he wrote about Jesus as found in the gospel of John. Would our Holy Father have been able to teach on how what we find in John are, as he see it, the Johnannine Community’s reflection on the historical discourses between Jesus and the Jewish leaders possibly at his trial however placed in a different context through out John’s gospel. (By the way - I found it interesting what our Holy Father wrote in regards to the Apostolic Origin of this gospel and its relationship to the letters of John and Revelation. Would he have been able to write what he did were it not for modern biblical scholarship?)
But getting back to the infancy narratives, from what I wrote above I just think if we take too literalist point of view of these passages we loose so much. And as Pope Benedict has written should we really be afraid to face the question that maybe things did not happen just as it was written? And in regards to the Catechism, if we really read the whole section on the infancy narratives while it acknowledges that these are rooted in an historical event (The Incarnation) doesn’t the Catechism spend more time relating the symbolism or deeper meaning of these events than trying to prove that what we are reading is the actual way things happened? I think implied in aother sections of the Catechism that acknowledge the different literary forms used in the Bible and understanding the influence Cardinal Ratzinger had in its development and writing I did not find the section on the infancy narratives to be a defense of the necessity of taking each and every line of the infancy narrative as literal.
But again, as I understand things, even if the infancy narratives are not historical in the literal sense or modern sense of the term history they remain narratives of the really real - The Incarnation.
I am sure by now there are some here who are scanning the works of these men to fine sentences they wrote attacking the abuses of modern biblical scholarship but this begs the question of what the true benefits of contemporary scholarship are.
For me, and perhaps a few other, what bothers me most of those who have been approaching the infancy narratives as literal narrations of the events as they actually happened is the conviction that by doing such we miss much of the richness of this and all scripture. Let me give you an example. An referance was made to John Paul II’s “Ttheology of the Body” which made me ask the question how much would have the beauty of this work been lost were it not for modern biblical scholarship? If we were to take those three chapters of Genesis just from a literal understanding would this have lessen the ability of Pope John Paul to write what he did? Or consider Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and what he wrote about Jesus as found in the gospel of John. Would our Holy Father have been able to teach on how what we find in John are, as he see it, the Johnannine Community’s reflection on the historical discourses between Jesus and the Jewish leaders possibly at his trial however placed in a different context through out John’s gospel. (By the way - I found it interesting what our Holy Father wrote in regards to the Apostolic Origin of this gospel and its relationship to the letters of John and Revelation. Would he have been able to write what he did were it not for modern biblical scholarship?)
But getting back to the infancy narratives, from what I wrote above I just think if we take too literalist point of view of these passages we loose so much. And as Pope Benedict has written should we really be afraid to face the question that maybe things did not happen just as it was written? And in regards to the Catechism, if we really read the whole section on the infancy narratives while it acknowledges that these are rooted in an historical event (The Incarnation) doesn’t the Catechism spend more time relating the symbolism or deeper meaning of these events than trying to prove that what we are reading is the actual way things happened? I think implied in aother sections of the Catechism that acknowledge the different literary forms used in the Bible and understanding the influence Cardinal Ratzinger had in its development and writing I did not find the section on the infancy narratives to be a defense of the necessity of taking each and every line of the infancy narrative as literal.
But again, as I understand things, even if the infancy narratives are not historical in the literal sense or modern sense of the term history they remain narratives of the really real - The Incarnation.
A
adrift
Guest
Despite all the wordiness it boils down to Jesus was born.
Yes the Catechism. does explain the symbolism but it does not limit the historical events to only the Incarnation that is your interpretation. Yes they do relate the deeper meaning to these events. However, It presupposes that these events happened. Nothing indicates in the Catechism that they did not occur. The symbolism would be meaningless if it was fiction.
T
TOME
Guest
Neil,
First, it seems to me that your question implies the attitude I wrote about earlier, that is the “All or Nothing” attitude. And while it may seem to you that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too with my earlier statements I am sure what I write here will confirm, in your own mind, this is exactly what I am doing (but what good is cake just to look at and not eat?)
I thought I was clear that I believe in the Incarnation - hopefully this will clear up any doubts some may have. However, I use the term “Incarnation” deliberately as oppose to saying just I believe Jesus was born. If you re-read my post perhaps then you will come to the understanding that I believe that the historical reality of Jesus’ birth (of the Virgin Mary) must be understood in the light of Salvation History which transcends the phenomena of human history. This is why in another post I used the term “mere” in regards to the recordable historical event because doesn’t human history pale in comparison to the reality of Salvation History?
Now to have my cake and eat it too. I think every part of the infancy narritives is important in the proclamation of the Incarnation but are not essential to my belief in this reality. I wrote earlier how the Catechism describes the symbolism found in the different events and it is in the symbolism of these events I find their real value. Here, I must add that their real importance lies in the fact that each in its own way points to the mystery of the Cross and Resurrection.
Still, if it was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the stories of the shepherds or the magi were not historical events (please note the word “if”) this wouldn’t lessen my belief in the Incarnation nor would it lead me to total disbelief. I can say this because having read enough on how the ancients wrote I realize that their mode of writting history often incorporated stories and myths etc. not to decieve but to impress upon the minds of their readers and more their listeners the importance of the message being conveyed. Still, if it was proven, by outside sources, that all we find in the gospel infancy narratives were true - all the better!
But I am glad that this question was asked because it gives me the oportunity to expand on something I wrote earlier, namely, one of the things that bothers me about taking an understanding that is too literal is it doesn’t allow a richer understanding of the scriptures themselves.
Let me give an example. What I tend to write may shock some but please read all that I write before trying to pick out each heretical phrase. If you read Pope Benedict’s writings on the scriptures and the infancy narratives he often writes that one of the weaknesses of the abuses of those who use the historical critical methods incorrectly is their failure to understand that what we find here in its ontologial understanding of the person of Jesus of Nazarath is something that is far beyond the religious imagination of anything we find in pagan and even jewish literature and myth. But it seems that someone like Dominic Crossan would be in agreement with our Holy Father. Crossen himself write about how in other pagan myths we do find what seems to be similarities - conception caused by a diety, cosmic events even wisemen, but never for a person so lowly in society as Jesus was born into and never a conception that didn’t have a physical aspect (usually rape by a god). The pagan would just couldn’t conceive of this. Using the prologue of John, the metaphysical reality of logos and sarx was not in pagan thought and certainly not from jewish thought with their understanding and belief in Monotheism. The Incarnation is something that was beyond the religious imagination of ancient times despite what R. Bultmann and those influnced by him in the early 20th century thought. Again, this is something that has developed in modern time though the proper use of the historical method and points to the richness of the infancy narratives as being Inspired.
So my approach to the Infancy Narratives is they are important in the proclamation but not essential for my belief in the Incarnation.
But as much as I hope it would not be necessay to write any further I still am sure some are thinking that if I don’t think the Infancy Narratives are essential what about the “Announciation”?
My answer to this possible question is read Pope Benedict XVI’s
“Mary the Source of the Church”. That is what I understand about the “Announciation”.
First, it seems to me that your question implies the attitude I wrote about earlier, that is the “All or Nothing” attitude. And while it may seem to you that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too with my earlier statements I am sure what I write here will confirm, in your own mind, this is exactly what I am doing (but what good is cake just to look at and not eat?)
I thought I was clear that I believe in the Incarnation - hopefully this will clear up any doubts some may have. However, I use the term “Incarnation” deliberately as oppose to saying just I believe Jesus was born. If you re-read my post perhaps then you will come to the understanding that I believe that the historical reality of Jesus’ birth (of the Virgin Mary) must be understood in the light of Salvation History which transcends the phenomena of human history. This is why in another post I used the term “mere” in regards to the recordable historical event because doesn’t human history pale in comparison to the reality of Salvation History?
Now to have my cake and eat it too. I think every part of the infancy narritives is important in the proclamation of the Incarnation but are not essential to my belief in this reality. I wrote earlier how the Catechism describes the symbolism found in the different events and it is in the symbolism of these events I find their real value. Here, I must add that their real importance lies in the fact that each in its own way points to the mystery of the Cross and Resurrection.
Still, if it was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the stories of the shepherds or the magi were not historical events (please note the word “if”) this wouldn’t lessen my belief in the Incarnation nor would it lead me to total disbelief. I can say this because having read enough on how the ancients wrote I realize that their mode of writting history often incorporated stories and myths etc. not to decieve but to impress upon the minds of their readers and more their listeners the importance of the message being conveyed. Still, if it was proven, by outside sources, that all we find in the gospel infancy narratives were true - all the better!
But I am glad that this question was asked because it gives me the oportunity to expand on something I wrote earlier, namely, one of the things that bothers me about taking an understanding that is too literal is it doesn’t allow a richer understanding of the scriptures themselves.
Let me give an example. What I tend to write may shock some but please read all that I write before trying to pick out each heretical phrase. If you read Pope Benedict’s writings on the scriptures and the infancy narratives he often writes that one of the weaknesses of the abuses of those who use the historical critical methods incorrectly is their failure to understand that what we find here in its ontologial understanding of the person of Jesus of Nazarath is something that is far beyond the religious imagination of anything we find in pagan and even jewish literature and myth. But it seems that someone like Dominic Crossan would be in agreement with our Holy Father. Crossen himself write about how in other pagan myths we do find what seems to be similarities - conception caused by a diety, cosmic events even wisemen, but never for a person so lowly in society as Jesus was born into and never a conception that didn’t have a physical aspect (usually rape by a god). The pagan would just couldn’t conceive of this. Using the prologue of John, the metaphysical reality of logos and sarx was not in pagan thought and certainly not from jewish thought with their understanding and belief in Monotheism. The Incarnation is something that was beyond the religious imagination of ancient times despite what R. Bultmann and those influnced by him in the early 20th century thought. Again, this is something that has developed in modern time though the proper use of the historical method and points to the richness of the infancy narratives as being Inspired.
So my approach to the Infancy Narratives is they are important in the proclamation but not essential for my belief in the Incarnation.
But as much as I hope it would not be necessay to write any further I still am sure some are thinking that if I don’t think the Infancy Narratives are essential what about the “Announciation”?
My answer to this possible question is read Pope Benedict XVI’s
“Mary the Source of the Church”. That is what I understand about the “Announciation”.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
No, I’m serious.
As I don’t know what ideas you are referring to, I can’t usefully comment on them.Maybe you’re mistaking sensationalism for serious Biblical scholarship. I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Sensationalism =/= liberalism: what I mean by liberalism is the kind of thing described by Schweitzer in “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” - particularly in the form it took from about 1860 to 1920. F.C. Baur was not a liberal - Harnack, OTOH, was. Not everyone who expresses upsetting views is a liberal - sometimes, upsetting people’s views can be necessary. Jesus could be very upsetting - are we to ignore Him on that account. And some people are upsetting without need - that does not make them liberals.
Schweitzer’s book is a classic - if you’ve not read it, maybe you should.
- Status