[The Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith the English Episcopal Conference (CEE), with the permission of the Standing Committee at its meeting CCIX (Madrid, June 18 2008), has released yesterday a "note of clarification" the book "Jesus. Historical Approach "by José Antonio Pagola . According to the note of the EEC, Pagola "seems to imply that, to show the story should leave out faith as a result making a story that is incompatible with faith." Disregard the faith "is a wrong bias also held by many Catholic exegetes who say" but the key question is-always according to the note by the Episcopal Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith "in reconstructing a story from a arbitrary use of the Gospels, which is incompatible with faith. "
The note states that from the methodological point of view the book has three main weaknesses: the " rupture between faith and history", the "mistrust of the historicity of the Gospels" and " reading the life of Jesus from one end, twisting budgets."
doctrinal deficiencies listed are six and consist of " presentation of Jesus as a mere prophet," the "denial of divine filial " the " denial of redemptive meaning given by Jesus to his death ", the" darkening of the reality of sin and the sense of forgiveness, the " denial of Jesus' intention to found the Church as a hierarchical community "and " confusion about the historical, real and transcendent of the resurrection of Jesus. "
If the matter is sufficiently serious and delicate in itself, there something that is more complicated. In Basque The Journal of June 19 ie the day after the EC decision to publish this "disclaimer" for the general knowledge of the Catholic faithful, "one could read the letter that the Bishop of Guipuzcoa, Bishop Uriarte, wrote to his diocese. reproduce below the full text of this letter as published Basque El Diario (in addition to this newspaper, the letter was also published in New Life , Digital and Religion other media):
"Dear Diocesan Gipuzkoa:
- The work of José Antonio Pagola, Jesus. Historical approach has had an unusual echo. I had direct access to many testimonies of believers, away and unbelievers who, through reading, respectively found in it a call to follow, boost conversion and interest in the person and message of Jesus. I know also that many believers and pastors has a perplexity that has been troubling her faith and a critique inspired by the concern to maintain the identity clearly and the integrity of Catholic teaching about Jesus' true God and true man. "
- As diocesan bishop of the author and in tune with our bodies Episcopal Conference, I have sought advice of competent people and church. José Antonio Pagola has made, in light, a reading of his work and the text offers a new chapter clarifies the nature of his book and the scope and limits of a historical approach to Jesus. Click the last chapter to state more clearly the link between the story of Jesus and the development of the Catholic faith of the Church and introduced into the body of the book several modifications to dispel interpretations that could lead some passages of the first version. Both he and I are grateful to these criticisms that have contributed to that, far from distorting the text first, the author was able to improve significantly.
- With true desire to contribute to a more appropriate presentation of Jesus and the good of the whole Christian community, the author has contrasted all his work with two experts, appointed in dialogue with the President of the Conference and full confidence of the Church. Both have recorded their conviction that in the text are not renewed any express or implied claim that violates the core of the professed faith in Christ as normative and binding by the Catholic Church. This is also the conviction of a bishop theologian who has thoroughly examined the work. The Censor to whom, in the exercise of my responsibility, I asked the opinion on the new text says "with full certainty and knowledge of the facts that it can not find any statement that deviates from the faith and customs of the Church."
- Supported authorized these testimonies and assuming responsibility for my diocesan bishop of the author, I decided, before God and conscience, make mine the Nihil Obstat of the Censor and grant the Imprimatur renewed episcopal the text. Must appear in subsequent editions. I hope thereby to contribute to the integrity of the Catholic faith, the good of the ecclesial community and the exquisite consideration that, for many reasons, it's person of the author.
- Like any human endeavor, the new text is also improved and open to critical discussion of some aspects that do not touch the core of the faith. According to church law, the Nihil Obstat not prejudge these issues, even in principle is a recommendation of the book, but simply provides assurance that the text does not affirm anything contrary to faith and customs.
- is hoped that the exchange between theologians and exegetes will offering to the Christian community and those who do not belong to it are interested in Jesus, new contributions to help us more deeply confess as the Son of God made man and follow him more fully as our only Master and Lord. "
So far the letter of the Bishop.
publish below the full text of the note the EEC.
Qui potest capere, Capiata ... ]
# 439 Several Category-Miscellaneous: Ethics and Anthropology
Note the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the EEC
__________________________
Note of clarification on the book of
José Antonio Pagola,
Jesus. Historical approach
José Antonio Pagola,
Jesus. Historical approach
PRESENTATION
1. In October 2007 he published the first edition of the work of the Reverend. D. José Antonio Pagola, Jesus. Historical approach, PPC, Madrid 2007, 544pp. In just six months met eight editions, with tens of thousands of copies sold. In increasing development has accompanied a reaction of concern among many readers confused by statements and conclusions are not always compatible with the image of Jesus in the Gospels, and has been faithfully guarded and transmitted by the Church from apostolic times to the present days. The confusion caused by such forward this letter is necessary for clarification. 2. This Note does not intend to judge the subjective intentions of the author, let alone his priestly career. The review of the book the author has agreed to undertake not exclude the clarification of the reasons that have made necessary. In this way we respond to our obligation to help the thousands of readers of the first version to be a trial of it in accordance with Catholic doctrine. This clarification will focus on methodological issues and doctrinal [01].
3. From the methodological point of view, there are three main shortcomings of the work Jesus. Historical approach: a) the break that, in fact, established between faith and history, b) the distrust of the historicity of the Gospels, and c) reading the story of Jesus from budgets that have just twisted. Doctrinal deficiencies can be summarized in six: a) reductionist presentation of Jesus as a mere prophet, b) denial of his filial consciousness of God; c) denial of the redemptive meaning given by Jesus to his death, d) obscuring the reality of sin and the sense of forgiveness; e) denial of Jesus' intention to found the church as hierarchical community, and, f) confusion about the historical, real and transcendent of the resurrection of Jesus.
1. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
a) rupture between faith and historical research
4. The New Testament writings are indeed documents of faith, but "not [so] are less worthy of consideration, in all its stories, and historical evidence" [02]. The sacred authors are not limited to write down their subjective experiences about Jesus, nor have recreated in the light of Easter a different picture of that happened in history. The truth of the Gospel story is based both on the Holy Spirit's assistance (inspiration) and the historical record straight: What we have seen and heard we proclaim (1 Jn 1, 3). Therefore the Church has never ceased to trust the historicity of the gospel accounts: "The Holy Mother Church has firmly and constantly believed and believes that the above four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus the Son of God , living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was lifted to heaven "[03]. The historicity of Gospel witness is not altered because it was made to "that fuller understanding [04] born of Easter, because the sacred writers, even leaving his own mark," always the honest truth about Jesus "[05].
5. In the work at hand:
- uncritically assume a break between historical research on Jesus and faith in Him, including the so-called "historical Jesus" and "Christ of faith," giving the impression that faith lacks a solid historical foundation. Now, if the faith of the Church is founded in history, then Christianity ideology derives [06];
- seemed to suggest that to rebuild the historical figure of Jesus has to do without faith, or because the Christian reading of history is just one more among other possible or because they think that faith leads to a distortion of history [07].
6. It is also surprising to see how in this work are cited with equal authority canonical and apocryphal writings (cf. eg. Pp. 92-95). The inevitable result is confusion about the historical value of the sources used and the uncritical assumption of liberal bias which considers the faith and its formulation (dogma) as an adulteration of the true historical fact. We can not forget that the setting of Canon aimed at guarding the authentic witness of Jesus preserved from further interpretations adulterated. Apostolic Faith did not invent the story of Jesus, but the guarded, making it the guarantee of its authenticity. The criterion for discerning, preserve and transmit the authenticity of what was witnessed their conformity with the preaching of the apostles. So, who dispenses with the apostolic faith is close to a real historical approach to Jesus.
b) Distrust of the historicity of the Gospels
7. They are also frequent references to the book's historical non thousands of evangelical scenes (cf. eg pp. 39, n.2, 206, 215, n. 12, 336-337, 349, n. 42 , 363-364, 368, 377, 379, 429, 432) or the difficulty to determine if they describe actual events or inventions of the evangelists (cf. pp. 372-373). You could say that for the author, the distrust of the data of the Gospels is a condition for proceeding with rigorous historical research. This distrust is a consequence of the break is between Jesus himself (his life and education) and the assurance that their fans gave him (cf. p. 118, n. 9).
c) approach to the history from ideological assumptions
8. The historical reconstruction by the author alternates historical data supposedly inspired literary recreations Current thinking [08], taking also the proper analysis of the class struggle to describe family, social, economic, political and religious. The purpose of this description is to place the activity of Jesus and his preaching of the kingdom in a field preferably horizon [09]. Thus, the selective use of studies used in writing the book belongs equally selective use of sources. The Gospel narratives are later adaptations when refute the thesis itself, are historical when they agree with it.
2. DOCTRINAL ISSUES
9. The aim of the book Jesus. Approximation is closer to the historical figure of Jesus from a historical perspective. The author wish to answer the question "Who was Jesus?" (P. 5), to "know who is the source of my Christian faith" (p. 5).
a) Who is Jesus of Nazareth?
10. For the author, the Jesus actually happened in history is, above all, a prophet. Chapters 3 ("Search for God") and 11 ("true believer") are very illuminating. Certainly, the book begins by stating that "Jesus is the incarnation of God," the "man in whom God became incarnate" (p. 7). These statements also appear to explain what the followers of Jesus, raised, preaching about Jesus. But it should be noted that the author all these ways of speaking of Jesus belong to the disciples, who, after Easter, sought the name of Jesus going, sometimes, to Jewish tradition, and others, this terminology in the pagan world [10].
b) filial consciousness of Jesus of Nazareth
11. As important as determining the historical authenticity of the testimony is whether the Jesus of the profession of faith, made under the action of the Holy Spirit, is under the claim of Jesus who lived in a particular historical moment. If Jesus is not presented himself as God and Son of God, and claimed for himself the faith that called for the Father, the subsequent confession of faith of the apostles was only an exaggerated interpretation and, as such, deforming of his master, made from a Passover no longer knows what it is. The awareness that Jesus had of himself and his mission is inseparable from the historical truth contained in the profession of faith. Without the historical truth, the profession of faith becomes a myth. Well, the author writes in this regard: "At no time did [Jesus] says any claim to be God ... Nor is convicted of his claim to be the "Messiah" expected ... apparently, Jesus never spoke openly about his person "(p. 379). This statement contradicts the historical information contained in the Gospel witness, kept and transmitted by the Apostolic Church. Jesus indeed is God, God knows it and talks constantly about it [11].
12. For the author, that Jesus is the Son of God is an affirmation "of a religious character" (p. 303) that is not rooted in the Jesus of history. The answer to the question "Who is Jesus?" "Can only be personal" (p. 463). Jesus presented primarily as a prophet, not strange silence about his virginal conception, the claim about the "brothers" of Jesus in real and proper sense (cf. p. 43, n.11), the denial of his filial and messianic The purely natural explanation of miracles (healings and exorcisms), or emptying saving language content on the death and resurrection.
c) The redemptive value of Jesus' death
13. The author argues that the fundamental commitment of Jesus would have been "awaken faith in the nearness of God to fight against suffering" (p. 175). The main feature of God shown by Jesus was compassion. Although widely spoken of this feature, the book's compassion is nothing more than a noble sentiment towards the most disadvantaged, but it is not, strictly speaking, a condition with them and for them, for and in their place. And, for the author, Jesus gave his life or his death or sacrificial and redemptive meaning (cf. pp. 350-351). If Jesus gave his life and his death a sense of redemption, then the compassion is emptied of its original content [12].
14. In the same vein, the Last Supper is presented as a solemn farewell dinner with symbolic gestures, which aims to reminded his followers in the future. With the bread and the wine made prophetic gestures, "shared by all", making "this farewell dinner at a great sacramental action, the most important of his life, the one that best sums up his service to the kingdom of God ... Wants to remain attached to him and feed him hope. Always remember it delivered to your service "(p. 367). The words Do this in remembrance of me (1 Cor 11, 24, Luke 22, 21) 'do not belong to the older tradition. Probably come from later Christian liturgy, but certainly that was the desire of Jesus "(p. 367, n. 85) [13]. Dinner is for his followers to always remember Jesus. "Repeating that dinner can feed on his memory and his presence" (p. 367).
d) The release of sin and redemption
15. Reductionist conception of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is found also in the silence about the reality of sin. The reason for this silence is the contrast made between John the Baptist and Jesus: the first mission "is designed and organized according to the sin ... By contrast, the primary concern of Jesus is the suffering of the most unfortunate "(p. 174). This explains that the author, Satan is a symbol of evil (p. 98), "the personification of the hostile world that works against God and man" (p. 98). For the author, speaking of "Satan" is a myth to symbolize all forms of evil [14].
16. It is also clear how the author understands forgiveness. "These sinners who sit at his table, Jesus offers forgiveness wrapped in friendly welcome. There is no statement, does not absolve them of their sins, simply takes them as friends "(p. 205). The conversion is irrelevant (because "forgiveness is free") and "statements" of forgiveness of sins by Jesus, are not considered real, because in these ways "God appears as a" judge "(p. 206), and that's not what Jesus reveals to his" forgiveness "host." Jesus would have practiced a "pardon" welcome ", but not a" pardon, absolution. " However much you talk host in the end the author comes closest to a "host imposed, which makes irrelevant the free response of man [15].
e) Jesus and the Church
17. According to the author, Jesus had no intention of creating an organized and hierarchical, but wanted to launch a movement of men and women coming out of people and attached to it, "to help others to make saving consciousness of the nearness of God "(p. 269). Jesus sees all of his followers as a family (cf. p. 290). Nobody in your group will exercise a dominant power. There is also no hierarchical differences between men and women (cf. pp. 291-292) [16].
f) The resurrection of Jesus
18. Introducing the resurrection of Jesus, the author, but says that is a real historical event and interprets this historicity in a way that is inconsistent with the teaching of the Church, as understood as something that happens in the hearts of the disciples [17]. Nor is it consistent with the faith of the Church, his way of understanding the resurrection the body of Jesus and his explanation of the continuity between the body crucified and died, and resurrected (cf. p. 433). While asserting that the resurrection is something that happens to Jesus, they deny the reference to his real body and explains how the disciples' belief that "God has filled with life," without explaining what you mean [18].
3. CONCLUSION
19. Bearing in mind what is being said, we can say that the author seems to suggest indirectly that some key proposals of Catholic doctrine have no historical foundation in Jesus. This approach is harmful, it just de-legitimizing the Church teaching lacking, according to the Author-real rooting in Jesus and in history. The book is not to deny that teaching but, in fact, shown unfounded.
20. At the root of the issues identified are two assumptions that affect negatively the work: the break between historical research of Jesus and faith in Him, and interpretation of Sacred Scripture outside the Church's living Tradition. The author seems to imply that, to show the story should leave out faith as a result making a story that is incompatible with faith. The problem is not just to think that faith should not ignore to know who Jesus was historically (this is a wrong bias also held by many Catholic exegetes say that) [19], but above all because the book is intended as a "historical approach" - to reconstruct a story from arbitrary use of the Gospels, which is incompatible with faith. If the "historical Jesus" that shows the author is incompatible with the Jesus of the Church, not because it has invented, with the passage of time, a different Jesus happened, but because the "story" is proposed distorted history, although that certainly is not their intention. The author served in this work investigations are mostly out of tradition, both for its methodological assumptions (assumed uncritically), for its conclusions. The results you get are the logical derivation of its starting point [20].
21. The rapid dissemination of the work Jesus. Historical approach shows that, with areas of weakness identified, has other positives that make pleasant reading. In a historical presentation on the figure of Jesus is desirable to harmonize the scientific rigor with the plain language and communication. However, when the appearance of methodological rigor and doctrinal deficiencies hidden, literary fluency cause confusion and cast doubt. The purpose of this letter is simply to clear the confusion and doubts, and reiterate the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as now, Jesus Christ is the same and always will be. Do not let yourselves be seduced by various and strange doctrines. Best is to strengthen the heart with the grace that nothing took food to those who followed this path (13: 8-9).
Note by the Episcopal Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith published with the permission of the Permanent Commission of the English Episcopal Conference in CCIX meeting (Madrid, June 18, 2008)
______________________
Notes:
[01] In the document Christ present in the Church, the Episcopal Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith [= CEDF] (20/02/1992), already identified many of the deficiencies found in the book of the Reverend. JA Pagola, Jesus. Historical approach. The secularizing effect of these deficiencies have been turning for the English Bishops Pastoral Theology in Instruction and secularization in Spain. At forty years after the conclusion of Vatican II (3/30/2006), 22-35.
[02] CEDF, Christ present in the Church (2/20/1992), 5.
[03] Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum [= DV], 19.
[04] DV 19.
[05] DV 19.
[06] "It is contrary to the Christian faith make any separation between the Word and Jesus Christ. St. John clearly states that the Word, who "was in the beginning with God" is the very one who "became flesh" (Jn 1, 2.14). Jesus is the Incarnate Word, a single and indivisible person can not separate Jesus from Christ or speak of a "Jesus of history" who would differ from the "Christ of faith. " The Church acknowledges and confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16, 16). But Christ is not Jesus of Nazareth, and he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all ": John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio (12/07/1990), 6.
[07] is important to remember what was stated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about some writings of E. Schillebeeckx, "the theologian, when engaged in an exegetical or historical research can not claim honestly that has to abandon the faith claims of the Catholic Church: Letter to PE Schillebeeckx (11/20/1980) Note Annex I, A, 1 (ed. E. Vadillo, 43, 24 [= Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Documents 1966-2007, ed. Vadillo E. Romero, BAC, Madrid 2008, 227]).
[08] For example, in describing the family in the child Jesus grew up, the author speaks of the consideration that children deserve the time and common education they received: "For the eight years, boys were introduced with little preparation in the authoritarian world of men, where they were taught to assert their masculinity by cultivating the courage, sexual assault and sagacity "(p. 45). The author goes on to say that In Jesus' time the children are educated to practice "sexual aggression", but does not indicate the sources that lead to such consideration.
[09] The society of the time of Jesus is described with expressions such as: inequality "among the vast majority of rural population and the small elite who lived in the cities" (p. 23), strong tax pressure, the obligation of peasants to the elite (cf. p. 24), taxes to pay "the high costs of operating the temple and to maintain the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem" (p. 25), courts " rarely supported peasants "(p. 29), etc. On this picture the preaching of the kingdom appears, from a horizontal perspective, as a liberation from social oppression, "the activity of Jesus in the villages of Galilee and his message of" kingdom of God "represented a strong critique of this state of things "(p. 30), the beginning of Jesus' public activity is justified by its desire to preach to the poor people that" God comes and to free its people so much suffering and oppression "(p. 83) , "entire villages living under the oppression of the urban elites, suffering the scorn and humiliation" (p. 103), the kingdom of God is "in establishing of a society freed from all affliction "(p. 175);" luxurious buildings in the cities, poverty in the villages, wealth and ostentation in the urban elites, debt and hunger among rural people, the progressive enrichment of large landowners, loss of land to poor peasants "(p. 181). Matters to note that the author, speaking of suffering and oppression, does not refer to sin and the dominion of the Evil (give then what the author meant by Satan [symbol of evil: cf. P. 98], or what are the exorcisms and forgiveness of sins), but the injustice and oppressive power of the powerful of this world, for example, King Herod, whose kingdom is "built on force and oppression of the weak" (p. 179). The entire seventh chapter ("Defender of the past") clearly reflects this trend.
[10] "will soon be circulated by the Christian communities various titles and names taken from the Jewish cultural world or most Hellenized areas": p. 450.
[11] Though not a magisterial document of the International Theological Commission, the consciousness that Jesus had of himself and his mission (1985), made precisely the teaching of the Church as appears in the Gospels: "The life of Jesus testifies to the awareness of his filial relationship to the Father. His behavior and words, which are the "server" perfect, implies an authority that exceeds that of the ancient prophets and that is only for God. Jesus took this unique authority of its unique relationship to God, whom he calls "my Father." He was conscious of being the only Son of God and in this sense, if he himself, God 'International Theological Commission, the consciousness that Jesus had of himself and of his mission (1985), Proposition 1 ª (ed. C . Well, BAC, 587, 382).
[12] also on this point, the document of the International Theological Commission, the consciousness that Jesus had of himself and his mission (1985), makes it the teaching of the Church: "Jesus knew the end of his mission: to proclaim the Kingdom of God and doing this in his person, his deeds and words, so that the world is reconciled with God and renewed. Has freely accepted the will of the Father, give his life for the salvation of all men, he knew sent by the Father to serve and to give his life "the crowd" (Mk 14, 24) 'International Theological Commission, The Jesus was aware of himself and his mission (1985), Proposition 2 ª (ed. C. Pozo, BAC, 587, 384).
[13] H.-known thesis Lietzmann (Messe und Herrenmahl, 1926), that the institution of the Eucharist can not be attributed to Jesus historically, has experienced subsequent formulations within the followers of a reductive critical historical exegesis. Wrong about these approaches, cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on some publications of Prof. Dr. Reinhard Messner (30/11/2000), Intr. (Ed. E. Vadillo, 92, 5-7).
[14] Contrary to what the author says, the Church teaches that Satan is a real being angelic in nature and not a myth of evil: "Satan or the devil and other demons are fallen angels, having rejected freely serve God and his purpose. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their rebellion against God "(CCE 414).
[15] presentation, and not find justification in the Gospel texts, is opposed to Church teaching on man's justification and forgiveness of sins, which requires personal response: cf. CCE 1489-1490.
[16] Contrary to the claims by the author, the Church teaches that "the Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the full consummation of the Kingdom" (CCE 765) and that "the vocation and mission of the Twelve Apostles, according to the faith of the Church Christ founded while the ministry of apostolic succession ": Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on some publications of Prof. Dr. Reinhard Messner (30/11/2000), 13 [ed. E. Vadillo, 92, 22].
[17] The Church, however, teaches that the resurrection of Christ is an important historic event: "Faith in the Resurrection has an event designed both historically witnessed by the disciples who actually found the Risen One, and mysteriously as input transcendent humanity of Christ in the glory of God "(CCE 656).
[18] The trial of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on to explain how P. Roger Haight resurrection of Jesus Christ may well apply to the exposure of Pagola JA: "The interpretation of the author takes a position incompatible with the doctrine of the Church. It is made on wrong assumptions and not on the testimony of the New Testament, according to which the appearances of the Risen Christ and the empty grave are the foundation of the faith of the disciples in the resurrection of Christ and not vice versa ": cf. Notice the play "Jesus Symbol of God" of P. Roger Haight, SJ (13/12/2004), V [ed. Vadillo, 104, 24].
[19] See letter to EP Schillebeeckx (20/11/1980) Note Annex I, A, 1 (ed. E. Vadillo, 43, 24).
[20] JA Pagola's work add up to the words of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on some publications of Prof. Dr. Reinhard Messner, "The hypothesis of the origin of the texts paralyze biblical word as such. Conversely, it is clear that the Tradition in the sense defined by the Church, does not mean manipulation of the Scripture through successive teachings and customs, on the contrary, is a guarantee that the word of Scripture to preserve its claim ": Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notice of some publications of Prof. Dr. Reinhard Messner (30/11/2000), 13 [ed. E. Vadillo, 92, 6].
