question about heresy

[Joshua119]

How easy it will be for a future Anti-Christ to appear as a 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 adopting Jewish rituals as preachers or priests tell them that it is a part of our heritage that we should restore and practice once again. I recently saw a blasphemous daytime Protestant TV show that proposed exactly that. Even the Jewish people find these suggestions abominable--just ask a Jewish friend.

I agree with this totally. My concern with the whole issue is with the idea that the bible is interpretive or questionable. I do not believe in sola scriptura by any means, but I do believe that the Bible must be excepted in it's totality. I feel that the entire existence of Protestantism stems from Luther removing the books and sections of the Bible that didn't comply with his views. At the same time, other heresies such as the Manichean come from adding to the Bible and adopting practices from Zoroastrianism and paganism, just as Christians today find it popular to adapt Jewish and Wiccan practices.  I feel that the canon was decided on and interpreted by scholars far smarter than I or anyone else alive today.

Now it seems like Benedict and Francis are yet again attacking the Bible. By questioning the validity of the passage in Luke, as Benedict seems to have done, or declaring it's laws invalid, as Francis seems to be doing, they cast doubt on the validity of the whole thing. If the Pope says one thing is not true, then why should we believe any of it?

I don't know when the "theistic evolution" idea started, but it has been largely accepted by Popes and the public at large, and essentially makes Genesis nothing more than a work of fiction. If the foundation of our faith is declared false, then it can only be a matter of time before the rest of the faith is declared false as well.

Hopefully i'm not being too fatalistic, but I don't see any good coming from this.

[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?

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.

I just can't see any ambiguity there or any suggestion that the Biblical events are not true.  It is very clear to me that he accepts the historicity of the Gospels (especially if one reads the whole book and not just a few paragraphs).  Just because somebody misunderstands something does not mean there was modernism in it.

[Jayne]

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.

There are problems with Pope Benedict's ideas about Jews, but Joshua misidentified the problem in this passage.  Benedict was not suggesting, stating, implying, or hinting that the Gospel accounts are not true.  It was not a "troubling item". Saying things like that makes trads look like we don't know what we are talking about and makes it easier for people to dismiss legitimate criticisms.

[Jayne]

Now it seems like Benedict and Francis are yet again attacking the Bible. By questioning the validity of the passage in Luke, as Benedict seems to have done, or declaring it's laws invalid, as Francis seems to be doing, they cast doubt on the validity of the whole thing. If the Pope says one thing is not true, then why should we believe any of it?

The passage you cited was not an attack on the Bible.  It did not question the validity of Luke.  It is nothing like what Francis is doing.  You misunderstood the passage in Benedict's book. 

There are real problems besetting us now and it will hinder our attempts to deal with them if we mix in mere misunderstandings.

[Joshua119]

The passage you cited was not an attack on the Bible.  It did not question the validity of Luke.

sorry, I don't know why I said Luke, it is actually the Gospel of Matthew.

But I still don't see how

Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here

could be interepreted as anything other than an attack on the historical accuracy of the Gospel

[Jayne]

But I still don't see how

Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here

could be interepreted as anything other than an attack on the historical accuracy of the Gospel

If you were reading a commentary on the Parable of the Sower and saw the statement, "Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here," would it be an attack on the historical accuracy of the Gospel or would it be a statement that the sower in the parable is not a historical figure?   If the next sentence were, "This is a parable," would you have any doubt that it was the latter?

This is exactly the sort of situation we are dealing with in the passage you have noted.  Look at the rest of the sentence: 

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.

Benedict is making the point that the expression "all the Jews" is a figure of speech while the descriptions of the event in John's and Mark's Gospels are literal.  He is explaining how to reconcile the seemingly different accounts of three Gospels.  People only do this sort of reconciliation when they are assuming that the Gospels are historically accurate.

[red solo cup]

I was taught that differences between gospels arose because they were written for different audiences. Mathew was for Hebrews expecting the Messiah, Mark for Christians being persecuted, Luke for the poor and disenfranchised and John's was directed at gentiles.

[Jayne]

I was taught that differences between gospels arose because they were written for different audiences. Mathew was for Hebrews expecting the Messiah, Mark for Christians being persecuted, Luke for the poor and disenfranchised and John's was directed at gentiles.

Yes, they are all equally true but emphasize different aspects of the life and ministry of Christ.  This is what Pope Benedict is assuming in the passage in question.

[Joshua119]

If you were reading a commentary on the Parable of the Sower and saw the statement, "Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here," would it be an attack on the historical accuracy of the Gospel or would it be a statement that the sower in the parable is not a historical figure?   If the next sentence were, "This is a parable," would you have any doubt that it was the latter?

The problem with this argument is that whenever Jesus told a parable, the Bible makes sure to state that He was telling a parable. So even if the parable is fictitious, Matthew would be recounting the historical fact that Jesus told a parable.

This is exactly the sort of situation we are dealing with in the passage you have noted.  Look at the rest of the sentence:

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.

Benedict is making the point that the expression "all the Jews" is a figure of speech while the descriptions of the event in John's and Mark's Gospels are literal.  He is explaining how to reconcile the seemingly different accounts of three Gospels.  People only do this sort of reconciliation when they are assuming that the Gospels are historically accurate.

Here is the whole passage from the Gospel of Matthew:
Chapter 27 1-5

And when morning was come, all the chief priests and ancients of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death. [2] And they brought him bound, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. [3] Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, [4] Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? look thou to it. [5] And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter.

Chapter 27 21-25

And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. [22] Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. [23] The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. [24] And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. [25] And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47027.htm

Matthew doesn't state that all the Jews on earth are at the crucifixion, what he says is in reference to the Jewish leaders and crowd present. At no time is the statement ever made that all the Jews alive on earth were present. By claiming that Matthew is wrong because not all the Jews in the world could have been present, he is twisting the words of the Gospel in order to present them in such a way as to state that they cannot be true. By doing this he is undermining the historical value of the Gospel altogether.

By claiming that any bit of the Bible is false, he is committing heresy.

[Jayne]

Matthew doesn't state that all the Jews on earth are at the crucifixion, what he says is in reference to the Jewish leaders and crowd present. At no time is the statement ever made that all the Jews alive on earth were present. By claiming that Matthew is wrong because not all the Jews in the world could have been present, he is twisting the words of the Gospel in order to present them in such a way as to state that they cannot be true. By doing this he is undermining the historical value of the Gospel altogether.

By claiming that any bit of the Bible is false, he is committing heresy.

Benedict was not saying that Matthew was wrong or that this bit of the Bible is false.  He is explaining that, in light of the other Gospel accounts, it is clear that the expression "the whole people"  means all those present, not all Jewish people.  He is identifying a possible way the passage could be misunderstood and clarifying the meaning.  He is not twisting anything.  He is doing what a commentary ought to do.  There is nothing at all heretical about this.

There actually are real problems in this passage from Benedict and you are missing them while you are chasing after your misunderstanding.

[SouthpawLink]

What lauermar wrote is all too correct: respect is not to be had for false religions.  For confirmation of this fact, please see Popes Leo XIII (Custodi Di Quella Fede, n. 15), St. Pius X (Notre Charge Apostolique) and Pius XII (Ecco che gia un anno, Ci Riesce).

[St. Drogo]

Matthew doesn't state that all the Jews on earth are at the crucifixion, what he says is in reference to the Jewish leaders and crowd present. At no time is the statement ever made that all the Jews alive on earth were present. By claiming that Matthew is wrong because not all the Jews in the world could have been present, he is twisting the words of the Gospel in order to present them in such a way as to state that they cannot be true. By doing this he is undermining the historical value of the Gospel altogether.

By claiming that any bit of the Bible is false, he is committing heresy.

Benedict was not saying that Matthew was wrong or that this bit of the Bible is false.  He is explaining that, in light of the other Gospel accounts, it is clear that the expression "the whole people"  means all those present, not all Jewish people.  He is identifying a possible way the passage could be misunderstood and clarifying the meaning.  He is not twisting anything.  He is doing what a commentary ought to do.  There is nothing at all heretical about this.

There actually are real problems in this passage from Benedict and you are missing them while you are chasing after your misunderstanding.

Jayne, I agree with you. I have never been so baffled by a dispute on a Catholic forum. This doesn't even warrant argument. Joshua, I admonish you to concede the point. It looks like pride.

ETA:
I don't have a Greek scripture at home, but I do have the Vulgate. The Latin translation in Matthew is "universus populus." It literally refers to the entire people, not just those present; but that is an impossibility. Therefore, Matthew must not have been writing literally but figuratively.

[Jayne]

I feel bad about not letting go of the argument.  I have the fault of carrying on arguments past the point where they are profitable and I've been trying to work on it.  I don't, however, see how I can let go when an accusation of heresy is at stake.  This is one of the most serious sins possible.

[St. Drogo]

I feel bad about not letting go of the argument.  I have the fault of carrying on arguments past the point where they are profitable and I've been trying to work on it.  I don't, however, see how I can let go when an accusation of heresy is at stake.  This is one of the most serious sins possible.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't criticizing you. I'm just amazed that this is an argument that even has to be made in the first place. In my judgment, you did well to write as you did.

[Jayne]

I feel bad about not letting go of the argument.  I have the fault of carrying on arguments past the point where they are profitable and I've been trying to work on it.  I don't, however, see how I can let go when an accusation of heresy is at stake.  This is one of the most serious sins possible.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't criticizing you. I'm just amazed that this is an argument that even has to be made in the first place. In my judgment, you did well to write as you did.

Thank you.  I realized that you weren't criticizing me.  I appreciated your post a lot.  It's just that I have been concerned about myself getting involved in an argument and this gave me an opening to say so.