FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope Benedict: Bible Cannot Be Taken Literally
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(11-20-2010, 01:56 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: [ -> ]Matthew 1:16 -- "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23 -- "And Jesus himself ... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, ..."

I see nothing in there about the genealogy of Mary. One says Jacob was the father of Joseph; the other says Joseph was the son of Heli. Either they contradict each other or at least one of them is to be taken non-literally. Make your choice -- you can't have it both ways.

We are not Protestants. Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. Catholics believe in tradition along with the Bible. The word of God is both written and oral. What seems missing or contradictatory from the Bible can be explained by oral tradition. St. luke does not write it in the Gospel that he is using mary, but the knowledge comes from tradition.

Heli was the father of Mary. The Hebrew name Heli has also be translated as Joacim or Joachim, which we in the English world, know as St. Joachim, the father of Mary. The following commentary explains it all:


Fr. George Leo Haydock
Haydock's New Testament Commentary
Luke 3


"That St. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in St. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in St. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Heli, in St. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Neri, in St. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. by Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. St. Matthew carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; St. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."
Quote:Your Bible clearly declares, first and foremost, that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).

The "altar call" where congregants give themselves to be saved by being "born again."    Something akin to the "future perfect" tense in English grammar, "come up and accept Jesus as your personal savior and you WILL be saved, and you ARE GOING to be always saved."  Isn't this some kind of prophetic statement?

Thank God for this Pope, he speaks like a true Catholic.  There's hope for the Church.  For a while right after the Conclave when we learned Ratzinger was elected Pope, a loud groan was heard throughout Catholic Christendom.  But Jesus said, "So you chose Ratzinger.  For now he is My pope."  The Holy Ghost is truly working in him.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt136.html

Please see paragraph #9 for a compilation of papal statements on biblical inerrancy.

The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on biblical inerrancy is clear.  Witness:  a) Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII (1893):  “There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of ‘higher criticism,’ which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity, and authority of each book from internal indications alone.  . . .  it will only give rise to disagreement and dissention, those sure notes of error which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracles, and of everything else that is outside the natural order” (EB 119, RSS, pp. 20-214).  b) Pascendi Dominici gregis of Pope St. Pius X (1907): “Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be greatly afraid of being taken for philosophers.  …  And yet the truth is that their history and their criticism are saturated with their philosophy, and that their historical-critical conclusions are the natural fruit of their philosophical principles5.  c) Spiritus Paraclitus of Pope Benedict XV (1920):  “Consequently, it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as his instruments for writing, and that, therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves” (EB 452).  . . .  “We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others, but we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers” (EB 453, RSS, pp. 50-51).  d) Divino afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII (1943):  “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes it and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’  This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously” (EB 539, RSS, p. 82).  e) Divino afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII (1943): “For, as the substantial Word of God became like men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error” (EB 559, RSS, p. 98).  f) Divino afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII (1943): “(E)ven today serious problems greatly exercise the minds of Catholic exegetes.  . . . .  [The Catholic commentator] “may attempt to find a satisfactory solution which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of the profane sciences” (EB 563-564, RSS, p. 101).  g) Humani generis of Pope Pius XII (1950): “For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.  They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden.  In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church.  . . .  ” (EB 612, RSS, p. 113).  The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993):  “The inspired books teach the truth.  ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures’” (CCC 107, quoting Dei Verbum 11).
My apologies to those who thought they would hear no more from me. I intended to bow out of this argument, but I couldn't resist this.
(11-20-2010, 03:22 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-20-2010, 01:56 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: [ -> ]Matthew 1:16 -- "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23 -- "And Jesus himself ... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, ..."

I see nothing in there about the genealogy of Mary. One says Jacob was the father of Joseph; the other says Joseph was the son of Heli. Either they contradict each other or at least one of them is to be taken non-literally. Make your choice -- you can't have it both ways.

We are not Protestants. Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. Catholics believe in tradition along with the Bible. The word of God is both written and oral.

Gee, that's what I've been saying all along. You're the one who insists on an absolutely literal reading (which I would expect from fundamentalist Protestants; Catholics are supposed to be more reasonable). It's really not fair to keep changing the rules as you go. By the way, "tradition" includes the teaching of the current Pope, who says we are not required to read the Bible literally. Read the title of the thread.
Quote:Heli was the father of Mary. The Hebrew name Heli has also be translated as Joacim or Joachim, which we in the English world, know as St. Joachim, the father of Mary. The following commentary explains it all:


Fr. George Leo Haydock
Haydock's New Testament Commentary
Luke 3


"That St. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in St. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in St. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Heli, in St. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Neri, in St. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. by Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. St. Matthew carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; St. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."

Sorry, but I'm not buyin' it. There are numerous holes in this argument. (1) This is not some abstract theological treatise that requires a lot of exegesis. It's a genealogy. That's about as simple as it gets. If Luke meant Mary, why didn't he just say Mary? (2) The two genealogies are pretty much the same before David, totally different after that. Okay, one goes through Solomon and the other through Nathan. Fair enough. But what is Zorobabel (the same Zorobabel, according to Fr. Haydock) doing in the middle of both branches? (3) I got curious about Zorobabel, and did a little searching. He shows up in 1 Chronicles. Sure enough there is a Salathiel (although he is given there as the uncle of Zorobabel, not his father), but here are Zorobabel's children, according to 1 Chronicles 3:

"19 ... Zorobabel begot Mosollam, Hananias, and Salomith their sister: 20 Hasaba also, and Ohol, and Barachias, and Hasadias, Josabhesed, five."

No mention of any Abiud or Reza. So now we have three different genealogies which do not agree with each other. They cannot possibly all be literal truth. (4) Matthew's genealogy has 16 generations between David and Zorobabel, plus 10 between Zorobabel and Joseph, for a total of 26 generations (although Matthew, who doesn't count so good, claims 27); Luke's genealogy has 22 generations between David and Zorobabel, and 19 between Zorobabel and Joseph, for a total of 41 generations. That's a pretty big difference. It means Solomon's line were having children at an average age of 38 or thereabouts, compared to 24 or so for Nathan's line (assuming roughly 1000 years between David and Joseph). I don't find that plausible. One person might wait until he or she is 38 to have children, but not an entire line of descent through 26 generations -- unless that was the norm in that society. But then it's equally implausible that everyone in another line, through 41 generations, would be jumping the gun by 14 years. (5) If "women entered not into the genealogy," what is Joanna doing in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:27 "Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, ...")? Was Joanna a man's name back then?

Instead of trying to swallow that whole batch of contradictions and inconsistencies and implausibilities, why not just admit that there are some errors in the Bible? In any case, no matter how you spin it, you have to sacrifice the "literal truth" hypothesis, that every word of the Bible means exactly what it says -- because it says that Salathiel was both Zorobabel's father and his uncle, and that Jacob and Heli were both the father of Joseph, and my mind doesn't jump through those hoops. If yours does, you're checking your brain at the door, regardless of any claims to the contrary.
With all due respect, I'll listen to the Magisterium of Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII, rather than modernist banter ("Error can be found in Scripture"), which has been repeatedly condemned.
edited
Pages: 1 2 3 4