question about heresy

[Joshua119]

So I just finished the second book in Pope Benedict XVI's three volume set Jesus of Nazareth. Overall I have found the both the first and second books to be very well written and inspiring, but the second book left me feeling somewhat troubled.

During the course of the book, Pope Benedict asserts that the Jewish people should not be blamed for the the death of Jesus, and questions the authenticity of the commonly cited passage from the Gospel of Matthew: "Let His blood be upon us and our children." Pope Benedict seems to suggest that because this declaration in not found in the other three Gospels, it was probably inserted by St. Matthew or some other person due to anti-Semitic motivations.

Now, I understand that Jewish Deicide is at best a controversial topic, and I am not trying to be disrespectful to the members of this forum who are converts from Judaism. I also understand that biblical fundamentalism has rarely done any good throughout Christian history.

However, the book was published in 2011 when Benedict was still Pope, and so begins my actual question: Is it heretical for not only a Pope, but anyone really, to actively assert that a portion of the Bible is not only false but inserted for evil purposes? If the Bible is the inspired word of God (as we know it is) then how much, if at all, are we allowed to say that one sentence or another is not correct before we fall into heresy?

[Kaesekopf]

I would treat anything a German liberal writes with regards to the Jews with a healthy shipping container of salt.

[Joshua119]

I would treat anything a German liberal writes with regards to the Jews with a healthy shipping container of salt.

hahahaha I had the same thought but I wasn't sure if that was something I could say on the forum 

[Kaesekopf]

I would treat anything a German liberal writes with regards to the Jews with a healthy shipping container of salt.

hahahaha I had the same thought but I wasn't sure if that was something I could say on the forum 

Considering that he kowtowed to the Jews on the Good Friday prayer, celebrated then by no more than maybe what, less than a thousand priests worldwide on one day out of the year, I wouldn't put much past him with regards to them.

[Joshua119]

Considering that he kowtowed to the Jews on the Good Friday prayer, celebrated then by no more than maybe what, less than a thousand priests worldwide on one day out of the year, I wouldn't put much past him with regards to them.

True, I'm sure he still has some leftover guilt from the whole Hitler youth thing too. He probably allows that to cloud his judgment.

[Chestertonian]

the jews are the proxy for man in general

we are all responsible for the death of christ becauseifoursins

[SouthpawLink]

However, the book was published in 2011 when Benedict was still Pope, and so begins my actual question: Is it heretical for not only a Pope, but anyone really, to actively assert that a portion of the Bible is not only false but inserted for evil purposes? If the Bible is the inspired word of God (as we know it is) then how much, if at all, are we allowed to say that one sentence or another is not correct before we fall into heresy?

It wouldn't be his first time doing that:

"Most exegetes [Scripture scholars] take the view that Luke is exaggerating here [Luke 24:42] in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back to the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus appears suddenly in the midst of the disciples in a physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time" (Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 269).

[Jayne]

During the course of the book, Pope Benedict asserts that the Jewish people should not be blamed for the the death of Jesus, and questions the authenticity of the commonly cited passage from the Gospel of Matthew: "Let His blood be upon us and our children." Pope Benedict seems to suggest that because this declaration in not found in the other three Gospels, it was probably inserted by St. Matthew or some other person due to anti-Semitic motivations.

Would you mind giving the exact quote that leads you to think he questioning the authenticity of that passage?  I just read that section of the book and I did not get that from it.  Benedict did give it a somewhat questionable interpretation, but I did not see anything about lack of authenticity or anti-Semitism.

Anyhow, there used to be an article on the SSPX site that gives an explanation of the deicide issue that I like:

St. Matthew's Gospel states very clearly, not only that Pilate considered Jesus innocent of the accusations made against him, but also that the whole people of the Jews took the responsibility of his murder upon their own heads. Indeed, to Pilate's statement: "I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it," the response is immediate: "And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children." (Mt. 27:24, 25) The Gospel teaches us, therefore, that the Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide.

However, in what does that curse consist. Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin. The curse is of a different nature, and corresponds to the greatness of the vocation of the Jewish people as a preparation for the Messias, to the superiority of their election, which makes them first in the order of grace. Just as the true Israelites, who accept the Messias, are the first to receive "glory, honor and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rm. 2:10), so also are the first to receive the punishment of their refusal of the Messias: "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek" (Rm. 2:9). The curse is then the punishment for the hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation, that has refused to convert and to live a moral, spiritual life, directed towards heaven. This curse is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom. It is this that sets them as a people in entire opposition with the Catholic Church and its supernatural plan for the salvation of souls.

(I am not giving the link because I found this on a site that is criticial of the SSPX.)

[Joshua119]

An extension of Mark's ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew's account (27:25), which speaks of "all the people" and attributes to them the demand for Jesus' crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus' death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John's account and in Mark's. The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the "crowd" of Barabbas' supporters.

Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (cf. Matthäusevangelium II, p. 459). Matthew is thinking here of Jesus' prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken . . ." (Mt 23:37–38: cf. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, the whole of the section entitled "Gerichtsworte", II, pp. 295–308).

When in Matthew's account the "whole people" say: "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus' blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood" (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas' words about the need for Jesus' death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew's reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew's Gospel take on its correct meaning.

These passages together lead me to believe that Pope Benedict is questioning the historical accuracy and validity of portions of the Gospels. I would like to state again, in hopes that this doesn't get out of hand, that i'm not arguing for or against Jewish Deicide, my question is about denying or wrongly interpreting a section of the Bible, and how it relates to heresy.

[Jayne]

An extension of Mark's ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew's account (27:25), which speaks of "all the people" and attributes to them the demand for Jesus' crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus' death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John's account and in Mark's. The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the "crowd" of Barabbas' supporters.

Benedict is claiming that the expression "all the people" is a figure of speech rather than a claim that every single Jew alive at that time was present.  That seems reasonable to me.  Even if he is wrong, it is not a denial of the validity of Scripture.

Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (cf. Matthäusevangelium II, p. 459). Matthew is thinking here of Jesus' prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken . . ." (Mt 23:37–38: cf. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, the whole of the section entitled "Gerichtsworte", II, pp. 295–308).

To say "going beyond historical considerations" is not a denial that something is historical.  Benedict is claiming that Matthew had theological reasons to talk about this, not simply to recount what happened.  It was a historical event but it has more significance that that.

When in Matthew's account the "whole people" say: "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus' blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood" (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas' words about the need for Jesus' death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew's reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew's Gospel take on its correct meaning.

This is admittedly a strange interpretation of the words of Our Lord, but it in no way denies that Our Lord said these words.  Their historicity is not in question.  I cannot see any sort of implication that the words were inserted by Matthew or caused by his anti-Semitism.

These passages together lead me to believe that Pope Benedict is questioning the historical accuracy and validity of portions of the Gospels. I would like to state again, in hopes that this doesn't get out of hand, that i'm not arguing for or against Jewish Deicide, my question is about denying or wrongly interpreting a section of the Bible, and how it relates to heresy.

Whatever the faults of these passages, I do not see them as questioning the historical accuracy or validity of the Gospels. 

In a case like this, where it is not even clear that any material heresy exists, probably the first step would be to clarify what was meant.  Once it is determined that someone is saying something objectively wrong, he is told this.  To be a formal heretic a person must continue to hold a position contrary to Catholic teaching after he has  been told it is wrong and that he must stop holding it.  This is called pertinacity.

[Mattock]

From Pope Saint Pius X in Lamentabili Sane:

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures. CONDEMNED

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error. CONDEMNED

14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers. CONDEMNED

and I might as well add

13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews. CONDEMNED

Pope Benedict's exegesis on the "His blood be upon us" is impious, scandalous, in error, and frankly heretical -- if unintentionally so. I can imagine why he would prefer that history was different. But the crowd did actually say that in the praetorium on the morning of THE Good Friday. We must consider the Gospels to be fundamentally inerrant and historical.

The mystery here is that Christ was rejected by his own people. The people he made out of nothing other than a single wandering herdsman and his wife. The people he cared for and brought out of the slavery of Egypt. It is little surprise that this generation of churchmen who deny Christ wish to impute no guilt on the first generation of priests and scribes who killed him -- they have a clear affinity.

[Jayne]

Pope Benedict's exegesis on the "His blood be upon us" is impious, scandalous, in error, and frankly heretical -- if unintentionally so. I can imagine why he would prefer that history was different. But the crowd did actually say that in the praetorium on the morning of THE Good Friday. We must consider the Gospels to be fundamentally inerrant and historical.

I must be missing something because I can't see that Benedict denied the crowd said that.  I understood his position as the crowd did say it but it had a different theological significance than is often thought.  It did not look like a denial of history to me.  How are you getting that idea out of it?

[spx]

To: SouthPawLink.....well said......

[ImperialGuardsman]

Pope Benedict's exegesis on the "His blood be upon us" is impious, scandalous, in error, and frankly heretical -- if unintentionally so. I can imagine why he would prefer that history was different. But the crowd did actually say that in the praetorium on the morning of THE Good Friday. We must consider the Gospels to be fundamentally inerrant and historical.

I must be missing something because I can't see that Benedict denied the crowd said that.  I understood his position as the crowd did say it but it had a different theological significance than is often thought.  It did not look like a denial of history to me.  How are you getting that idea out of it?

I think the idea here is that all these various ideas are dancing very close to a denial of these Biblical events.  It comes off as ambiguous.  For the sake of clarity, he should have made it clear that the crowd said these words, but that the crowd did not include all living Jews.  It is very easy for someone to read these explanations and come to the same conclusions that the OP did.  This is what modernism does; it works to confuse.

[lauermar]

For the record, I'm not a Sedevacantist. I'm a Diocesan Catholic who attends an indult Latin mass or a Novus Ordo Missae at a conservative church.

Most of you have heard of Brother Peter Dimond's videos on youtube. He is a Sedevacantist, so anyone who listens to that video has to realize that's his bias. However, he has read about 28 books that Ratzinger and JP II published and he has done some critical analysis. Some of the facts Dimond states are legitimate and shouldn't be dismissed arbitrarily. He points to specific passages in Ratzinger's books, then takes a screen shot of the page for you to review the paragraph and context. He tells you the title and the page of the book he's referring to and invites his listeners to fact-check the details by reading the books in person.

In one video, Dimond discussed the very same troubling information that Joshua mentioned. I think the video is called "The Heresies of Benedict XVI."  One thing Dimond says about Ratzinger I believe is true:  he accepts the judgment of German biblical scholars who interpret the bible using an approach of Lutheran-leaning Reformationists. They have a pre-formed sense of doubt and try to fashion the bible into an exact historical record instead of the inspired word of God. This method is dangerous to the faith. Moreover, the writings of Ratzinger and other post-Vatican 2 popes at times mix modernist ideas with verifiable Catholic truth, which can perplex anyone who is trying to learn the faith.

Among the many errors that Ratzinger proposes about the Jews, as Dimond says, was his idea that a literal reading of the Old Testament doesn't point to Jesus as Messiah specifically. Therefore, Ratzinger thinks that Jews have a "right" to believe the Messiah never came and they are justified. This is heresy because error has no rights. Jesus proved Himself visibly as the Son of God (the prophecy of Simeon at Christ's circumcision, His baptism at the Jordan, His transfiguration, the miracle at Cana, His healing of the sick and raising of the dead, His casting out demons, etc.) There is no excuse to believe Jesus was anything other than the Messiah.

These erroneous ideas are further promoted by the post-Vatican 2 church's stance that Judaism has moral equality among religions. So even if the Jews have the wrong idea about the Messiah's not coming, we have to respect it as a valid one. This is patently false.

How easy it will be for a future Anti-Christ to appear as the kind of Messiah that every religion can accept as the Second Coming of God. False ideas paved the way for his acceptance. More and more Christians, including Protestants, are being encouraged preachers or priests to practice Jewish rituals as part of our heritage. These rituals express a core Jewish belief that the Messiah has not yet come, and that doubt is offensive to God. I recently saw a blasphemous daytime Protestant TV show that proposed practicing Jewish rituals. Even the Jewish people find these suggestions abominable--just ask a Jewish friend.

In summary, I think Joshua encountered one particular troubling item that touches upon the core of the Sedevacantist's argument: that popes after Vatican 2 are promulgating ideas that are heretical (and in some cases apostate) to the faith. There are many more I won't say because a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.