Bishop of San Jose Denies Historicity of Gospels in Response to "Passion" Film

Lifesite ^ | Monday February 23, 2004

[nickcarraway]

McGrath criticized by local Catholics for supporting pro-homosexual organizations

SAN JOSE February 23, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Roman Catholic bishop of San Jose California has written an editorial for the local paper in which he denies the historical truth of the Gospels. In response to the accusations of anti-semitism which have been made against the film, "The Passion of the Christ," Bishop Patrick J. McGrath wrote in The Mercury News on February 18, that the charge of anti-Semitism cannot be leveled against Catholicism since Catholics do not adhere to the literal, historical truth of Scripture.

Without commenting directly on the film, which he says he has not seen, the bishop wrote, "While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief."

However Bishop McGrath's statement that the Gospel accounts of the Passion of Christ are mere "theological reflections" contradicts Church teaching.

For example, the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum states, "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels…whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught…"

Bishop McGrath has been criticized by local Catholic groups for his support of pro-homosexual organizations and his exclusion of the Christian group Courage, a support group for homosexuals who try to live according to Christian morality.

Bishop McGrath's editorial: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryne ws/entertainment/special_packages/passio n_of_christ/7985930.htm

[Petronski]

This is what 'church tradition' and papal infalibility will get ya.

Just the opposite. He's directly contradicting the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

The word is apostasy.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ping

[Clintons a commie]

BWA HAW HAW HAW!!!!!!!!! This is what 'church tradition' and papal infalibility will get ya.

Considering the fact that the "higher criticism" of the Gospels and the Bible started with Protestant clergyman in the 19th century, and the Catholic Church held the fort on Biblical Innerrancy for a century after the higher critics did their damage in Protestant circles, you really have no room at all to laugh.

[jscd3]

The Catholic church has a rich history in telling the peasants what they should and shouldn't think about the Bible

Unlike, of course, Martin Luther (loved the Peasant Revolt...), John Calvin (Christian Totalitarianism anyone?), Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, any post Millenialist church, any Pre-Millenialist Church, any post trib-church, any pre-trib church, any Baptist minister, and Dispensationalist, and any of the 57 varieties of learned variations on eschotology, each and everyone founded in the only true literal reading of the Bible.

Thank God all you have to do is open the Book and read it for yourself - it's all so clear /sarcasm

The bishop in question is willfully wrong about Church teaching. Catholic church and Protestant. I think that we can agree on that

[narses]

The CRISIS exemplified.

[jscd3]

Thanks Pal, I liked that

[rogueleader]

Many wrongly assume that Mel Gibson is Roman Catholic. He is not. He is Old Catholic.

The Old Catholics broke away from the Roman church several hundred years ago. They consider themselves Catholic and will call themselves that.

There are doctrinal differences. Not sure which ones might apply here, but maybe that is what this argument involving the San Jose RC bishop is about.

[Captiva]

This is what 'church tradition' and papal infalibility will get ya

Yea, that and a bunch of dead babies hidden in the catacombs bore by nuns impregnated by priests, right?

[Imal]

A very well-made point. The various gospels differ in some details, as any eyewitness accounts will. They were written by men, not God, and we are only human.

The differences in the minutiae, however, don't mean the events they claim to have witnessed did not occur. To fixate on the details as a "literalist", however, is to miss the forest for the trees.

Better to focus on the message, rather than the messengers.

[mercy]

Not interested in ancient history. Thanks to Luther and Calvin the situation is now reversed and this is more relevant don't you think?

[Clintons a commie]

Many wrongly assume that Mel Gibson is Roman Catholic. He is not. He is Old Catholic. Actually, the Old Catholics were a group that left the Catholic Church after the 1st Vatican Council and its proclamation on Papal Infallibility. Gibson belongs to the Traditionalist Movement, a group within Catholicism that wants the Church's liturgy to be restored to it's pre Vatican II state, and also rejects the ecumenism of the modern Papacies(but not the Papacy itself).

[JohnnyZ]

Matthew places the healing of the centurion's servant before the disciples' controversial plucking of grain on the Sabbath and Jesus' healing of the man's withered hand. Luke, however, places the healing of the centurion's servant after these same events. Matthew places the clearing of the temple immediately following the triumphal entry, before the cursing of the fig tree. Mark places the clearing of the temple on the day after the triumphal entry and after the cursing of the fig tree.

Now, look. I know y'all have already jumped all over the bishop, but clearly the gospels differ as a historical account. The chronology is different in many places, which means they can't be taken as an exact historical rendering. And obviously the Church doesn't teach that.

The bishop's statement was kinda vague but I don't see that he was trying to contradict church teaching. Accuse him of poor wording when it's important, as a shepherd, to be scrupulously accurate, but to blast him for one sentence in an article is not fair.

(Before you jump on ME, remember that I'm no theologian and MY wording may not have the correct shade of meaning -- suffice it to say that I believe the gospels are true, and the events happened, and the chronological differences are not really material.)

[B-Chan]

1. The Truth of the Christian faith has existed since the earthly life of the Lord.

2. But the Bible was not codified until the 4th Century AD.

3. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the sole source of Christian Truth.

****

1. In the 4th Century AD, the Canon of Scripture (i.e. the contents of Bible) were recognized as being divinely inspired according to Tradition received from the early Fathers of the Church.

2. Thus, the Bible itself is the product of Tradition.

3. Therefore, without Tradition, the Bible would not exist.

****

Conclusion 1: Since the Truth of Christianity preceded the existence of Scripture, then the Bible cannot be the sole source of Christian Truth.

Conclusion 2. Since the Canon of Scripture was determined by the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, anyone who accepts the Bible as divinely inspired also accepts the infallibility of the Church.

No infallible Church, no Bible. No Tradition, no Scripture. ”Bible Christianity” / sola scriptura are invalid.

QED

[Antoninus]

Sounds like another Mahoney phony....

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Mel Gibson is not Old Catholic. He disagrees with the Church at the point of VII.

[Clintons a commie]

Not interested in ancient history. Thanks to Luther and Calvin the situation is now reversed and this is more relevant don't you think? Considering the fact that Luther and Calvin's revolt against authority is what led to the idea that one could "demythologize" the Scriptures and find their "plain meaning" on one's own, I don't think it's ancient history at all. And Protestant "scholars" are still at the forefront of trashing the Bible. But I do applaud the Protestants who stand up for Scripture, like Josh McDowell and Lee Stroebel.

[Antoninus]

I was flicking around the TV channels today and came across a Jesuit priest "talking head" who appeared to be dissing The Passion, claiming it was not adhering to the Gospels. I clicked on. I wondered if this priest was a supporter of liberal causes.

The media runs to find the most liberal "Catholic" priests (or ex-priests) whenever they want to present the "Catholic" view point. The best thing to do is ignore them. They don't speak for anyone. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really teaches about something, you need to watch EWTN.

[Antoninus]

Bump. Yet another GOAT is found pretending to be a sheep....

This bishop is more likely to be a WOLF pretending to be a sheep...

[mercy]

I don't even need the New Testament to be a Christian. The Christ cited many Old Testament scriptures. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed they were found to agree nearly 100% mith manuscripts from the third and fourth century AD. To me this proves the Old Testament is inerrant and that work prophesied The Christ. I need NO tradition to prove my faith.

[walden]

""...homosexuals who try to live according to Christian morality."

Strange. I always thought that being homosexual is actually in itself against Christian morality."

It depends on what is meant by "being homosexual". Is a celibate person who has same-sex desires but fights them living outside Christian morality? I think not.