Though Schweitzer's own proposals about Jesus no longer command assent, his lasting contribution, comprising the bulk of the book, is the critique of his predecessors. Through examining the works of more than 50 18th- and 19th-century authors and scholars, he shows conclusively that each historical reconstruction of Jesus was largely a fantasy made in their own self-image.
Schweitzer's work has proved the touchstone for all subsequent quests for the "Jesus of history." It also contributed in no small measure to the remarkable resurgence in Jesus studies in the latter part of the 20th century, which culminated in the much publicized and highly controversial findings of the Jesus Seminar.
Recently we heard at Mass the Gospel where Jesus calls a Canaanite woman “a dog” which in our English translation is quite mean sounding. It is hard to interpret. Below this is an excellent interpretation from Catholic Straight Answers, the best I have read on the topic. But below that description is one of the most insidious interpretations by Fr. Anthony Spadaro, SJ, one of Pope Francis’ closest advisors and mouthpieces.
It is classic Protestant Modernism/enlightenment from the latter part of the 19th Century and early 20th Century borrowed by Catholic Scripture Scholars after Vatican II. Basically, liberal Protestantism of the Enlightenment period wanted to deconstruct the Bible and Jesus as it and He were interpreted in light of the Resurrection in light of faith, not historical facts. They wanted to get back to the Historical Jesus, prior to the Resurrection and how He viewed Himself and what He knew and did not know. This opens the door to Jesus not really knowing who He was and bumbling though life and experiencing sin and conversion as any mere human being. It is heretical of course, unless we can develop doctrine to the point that it rejects what preceded it about the sinlessness of Jesus.
Father Spadaro says that Jesus sinned in calling the Canaanite woman a dog and then he experienced a conversion and repented and was nice to her and included her. Jesus’ greatest sin was his rigidity, what Pope Francis thinks is the most mortal sin ever. Jesus was ridgid and thus a mortal sinner and mentally ill in this scenario. Read it for yourself after this first great apologetic:
From Catholic Straight Answers:
The passage in question occurs in Matthew 15:21-28. Our Lord is approached by a gentile Canaanite woman (also called the Syro-Phoenician woman) whose daughter is possessed by a demon. On first hearing their conversation, Our Lord definitely seems hostile and uncompassionate; however, to draw such a conclusion is contrary to who Jesus is.
This passage is indeed complicated. Understanding the cultural context will help. First, Jesus’ mission was first to the people of the covenant, i.e., the Jews, who were awaiting the Messiah. Technically, the mission to the gentiles was not granted until the Ascension, when Our Lord said, “Go out and make disciples of all the nations” (Mt 28:18-20). Nevertheless, He already had shown His openness to the gentiles, like curing the centurion’s serving boy (Mt 8:5-13).
Second, Jews considered gentiles as “dogs.” To call a person a “dog” was a severe insult. The Jews used phrases like, “gentile dog,” “infidel dog” and later, “Christian dog.” However, Jesus used the diminutive form for “dog,” better translated as “puppy.” So instead of calling her the insulting “junk yard dog,” He calls her “lovable puppy.” (Keep in mind the English translation misses this distinction from the original Greek text.)
One would also have to ponder about how Jesus said this phrase. He must not have said “dog” with contempt or scorn. Rather, He probably said it tongue-in-cheek. For instance, to call someone a “rascal” literally would be derogatory, but I remember calling my nephew (when he was a toddler) “you little rascal,” of course in a loving way. Our Lord may even have been criticizing the normal Jewish parlance.
What is most important is the woman’s faith and her perseverance: “Oh woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire.” So in the end, Our Lord praises the gentile “dog” for faith and perseverance that surpassed the Jews.
Father Anthony Spadaro, SJ’s 1960’s interpretation by way of liberal Protestantism’s explanation in the 1800’s:
Recounting the passage of Christ’s encounter with the Canaanite woman whose daughter was afflicted by a demon, Spadaro accused Christ of being first “indifferent,” and then “stymied and callous.”
“Jesus remains indifferent,” argued Spadaro in reference to Christ not appearing to answer the woman’s initial cries. “His disciples approach him and plead with him in amazement,” he continued. “The woman was moving those who also misjudged her! Her cries had broken the barrier of rancor. But Jesus did not care.”
Spadaro argued that Christ’s “silence” was followed by “Jesus’ stymied and callous reply, ‘I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”
“The Master’s harshness is unshakable,” commented Spadaro, previously denoted as “the Pope’s mouthpiece.”
“Now even Jesus plays the theologian: the mission received from God is limited to the children of Israel. So, no dice. Mercy is not for her,” he said. “It is excluded. There is no question about it.”
The 57-year-old Jesuit argued that Christ’s continued conversation with the Canaanite woman was marked by the cultural “rigidity” of the time. Christ “responds mockingly and disrespectfully to the poor woman,” the Jesuit wrote, as he added that the Divine response was “a fall in tone, in style, in humanity. Jesus appears as if he was blinded by nationalism and theological rigor.”
He argued that the woman needed to “upset Jesus’ rigidity” in order to “to ‘convert’ him to himself.”
30 comments:
Spadaro is a brainless sychophant same as Austin, cheerleading while trying to anticipate their chosen master, frequently in and out of their master's favor for saying just the wrong thing, wrong only because it approved by their master but brings the wrong attention to their master who then says, "Bad dog! OUT!", where they then scurry frantically with tails down, circling their master seeking to regain admission to the small rabid pack and its associated glory and attention.
Where when readmitted, do the same thing again.
While Francis reminds me of the old cartoon at work, a frantic screaming boss with loose tie and pocket protector full of pens shrieks, "Holy ****! Don't tell me you did exactly what I told you to do!!"
This papacy must have been dreamed up for a WC Fields movie, or perhaps a Three Stooges short.
Mister Bob said:
"This papacy must have been dreamed up for a WC Fields movie, or perhaps a Three Stooges short."
🤣 I really did LOL, Bob!
On first reading the story of the Canaanite woman one is struck by how out of character what Jesus said to her was with who we know Jesus to be, the God Incarnate.
Jesus being God,his human nature perfected and informed by his Divine nature, whatever we read in scripture concerning Him must be properly read in that light. Upon pondering this Gospel passage I eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus did not say what he did to mean what the Jews of the time meant when they used this term, but rather was was mimicking them. I could picture Jesus saying what he did while smiling at the woman. Similar to someone today calling a friend with a contrarian view on a controversial issue a "hater", and not meaning that at all. As was in the Catholic Answers commentary, Jesus used the term for "puppy", and not what the Jews of the time meant..
This episode from scripture was another teaching opportunity for Jesus to instruct his disciples and others who were there, as well as those down through the ages with an open mind and heart, using the faithful perseverance of the Canaanite woman as an example.
I suspect that BOTH the Catholic World's and Sparado's understanding are plausible.
One commentator notes: "If, by the use of "puppies", the translators are attempting to soften Jesus' words, then they are missing the point of his statement. Everything about Jesus' words are objectionable, on the face of them. Adding a diminutive suffix onto one of them doesn't lessen the coldness of the reply. (The parallel account in Matthew 15:21-28 underscores this even more by mentioning that Jesus' first response was just to flatly ignore the woman!)
it seems to me that one of the keys here is to notice that many of the responses that Jesus gave to those entreating for help were NOT intended to be taken at face-value, but rather (1) as a lesson to the audience around him, and (2) as a means of exposing (and thereby honoring) the penitent's faith before all the onlookers.
(1) As for the first point, Swasheck has already pointed out the direct context of this passage which makes it clear that the underlying thread in this passage is the true meaning of "clean vs unclean". Tie that together with Matthew's observation that the disciples themselves responded with annoynance rather than compassion (Mt 15:23; "send her away!"), and we begin to suspect that Jesus' real objective here was to expose the prejudice and bigotry in his own followers (presumably by using what appears to be a "stock quote" out of their culture).
(2) He knew her faith; he wanted everyone else to see it too. (And the idea that it was her rhetorical skills rather than her faith that impressed him contradicts Matthew's interpretation of the events [Mt 15:28].)
In effect, he is saying, "Listen everyone: I know who you think she is -- she is an annoying unclean heathen woman worth less than a child -- a dog! But now I want to show you what I see: a woman of great and noble faith that you would all do well to emulate." And so, with his scandalous reply, he effectively draws out from her an extraordinary expression of humble, earnest, deferential faith -- as a model for all of us to imitate."
Of course, of you think Pope Francis is contemptible, a Marxist, In Over His Head, a babbler, a movie comic, etc., then no positive understanding will suffice...
I think that all of that is plausible and quite good. Ultimately, Jesus is God and as God He judges hearts, admits to heaven or condemns to hell. I suspect if He disposes anyone to justly belonging in hell, being called a dog is mild compared to what will be experienced. For Spadaro to say Jesus is the sinner here, who has to convert to Himself by repenting of his cultural rigidity is a joke and beyond questionable.
Let us be blunt.
God is perfect.
Jesus God.
Therefore, Jesus is perfect.
To assert Jesus was imperfect, and to go as far as to say that Jesus was a sinner in need of conversion, that Jesus needed saving, is blasphemy and heresy.
Quite beyond the fact that nobody could be so foolish as to truly believe in the divinity of someone so deeply flawed, which says a lot about the faith of those who apply human made psychology and social engineering concepts to the divine. They speak more of their own shortcomings with such talk, or in Spadaro's case, maybe even thinking of his fearless leader and Spadaro's numerous exiles from the spotlight.
Rather than take the text and ask what a perfect God could mean by this, they run with the concept of what would a flawed person like themselves be doing when behaving in such a manner.
Sparado doesn't call Christ a sinner. It is simply not there.
Now YOU and OTHERS HERE, read that into his words, but that's a comment on you, not Sparado. Was a person a sinner because he was a nationalist? Not necessarily. Does being callous make on a sinner? Not hardly.
On the other hand, turning Jesus' harsh replies - silence is a very harsh reply - into pious puppy piffle is very questionable.
Am pretty sure Spadaro's next installment will tell us how we really owe our salvation to Joseph, as Jesus never would have become God had Joseph not administered some good old fashioned butt whoopin's when Jesus was caught stealing dates from farmer Issac's grove, or the time he dipped the Magdalene girl's braids in his inkwell at school.
FRMJK you come close to denying original and actual sin. Callousness is actual sin either venial or mortal. Spadaro say the woman’s persistence led to Jesus conversion to Himself! Really? He’s rigid too, a mortal sin in this pope’s magisterium.
Kavanaugh, saints or God need no comversion, only sinners. You know this amd yet wish to interject legalistic technicalities over what the meaning of the word "is" is, same as that hero of yours. Logic is logic. Sophistry is sophistry, in which you try to major, but lackingly so, amd explaining why you failed to make the Jesuit team. Spadaro was likely the result of their desperation for vocations when they adopted social promotion, and sorry for you they waited so long to do so, or you could have helped Spadaro with his homilies.
Kavanaugh, Spadaro asserts Jesus needed comversion, and you seem to agree.
Jesus plainly stated that he was always about/after the Father's business, while someone in need of conversion is definitionally not. So, the assertion of Jesus needing conversion then leads to Jesus lied.
Comversiom, metanoia is turning away from the world and its sin and turning to God in love, the perfected in heaven love God without ceasing, and our aim is to love God as near as totally as we can here, so that we can love him forever in heaven. Claiming Jesus needed conversion is saying his love of the Father was less than perfect. Only a perfect unblemished sacrifice could have saved fallen man, and Jesus being blemished would make our salvation impossible as we have no perfect example or imspiration to show that such is even possible. He was the human face of God. Do you get that? God...G-O-D...God.
For a man with a clerical.collar, I fear for the souls in your charge, as you seem clueless as to what God did for us or asks of us in return.
Kavanaugh = Abortion is healthcare. He must believe that because it is the modern raison d’etre of his Party. Otherwise he would not
Who is passing judgement over the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Furthermore, the First Person condemned the chosen people to Babylonial captivity. That was certainly heavy handed. When these latter-day theologians meet their Maker, I should like to be watching from behintd the curtains.
Father McDonald, and other Geeawjuh folk, watch out fer them thar squall lines 'n tornadycanes an' git granny's rocker in off the porch.
I have never understood this in any of these ways. Christ was not converted, of course, but introduced the Jewish disciples to the need to introduce the gentiles to the Lord. His exchange about dogs with the woman was to embarrass the disciples with her display of appropriate humility before God.
TJM - As always you are a liar. As I have stated here repeatedly, I do not believe abortion is heath care. If you think that voting for a candidate who supports abortion "proves" I support abortion, then, by voting for Trump, you "prove" that you support the sexual abuse of women, adultery, and felonious criminal acts.
Bob - Although you wish it were otherwise - and wishing doesn't make it so - technicalities are part and parcel of the 1) the interpretation and understanding of Sacred Scripture and 2) the interpretation and understanding of doctrine. If you don't think so try reading a few chapters in Aquinas or von Balthasar or de Lubac.
If you want to see just how technical interpretation can be, buy (and read) "Le Ton Beau De Marot: In Praise of The Music of Language" by Douglas Hofstadter, who also wrote "Godel, Escher, Bach." Le Ton Beau speaks to the intricacies and technicalities of translation.
And if you think saints don't need conversion, think again. The stories of their lives include many references to the sins that are still in their lives and how they prayed regularly for conversion.
rcg - There is certainly an element of challenging the disciples (and us) in the words Jesus chose. Like many, including folks here, they rushed to judgment of people based on their own cultural and religious prejudices. (John 4:27 "At that moment his disciples returned, and were amazed that he was talking with a woman, but still no one said, “What are you looking for?” or “Why are you talking with her?”)
Jesus, too, was a product of his time and culture. He went to the temple, he was baptized by John, he spoke to the people using images and examples they could understand. He was culturally, through and through, a first century Jew.
FRMJK, thanks for making it clear how wrong it is to simply focus on the historical Jesus and not the Jesus of faith! Jesus is not just a dead hero, a dead Jew or a man formed but the culture and religion of His day. He is he Glorious Risen Lord, transcending all time and cultures. As the Risen Lord, He is the Head of the Church He founded and guides by His Holy Spirit but in continuity with 2000 years and more of salvation history! As the Crucified, Risen and Glorified Lord, Jesus is a Catholic through and through today and forever! Praised be Jesus Christ the Risen Lord!
FrMJK, the only difference I would offer with your analysis is that Jesus was respectful of the Law at his point in time even though he did not need to be as He was both above and the source of the Law. He was not a product of his time but was an expert in the sensibilities of humanity and as displayed by the discussion with this woman, and the woman by the well, He guided the sinner through the last steps to the God they seek.
rcg - If he was truly human as well as being truly God, how was he not "a product of his time"? Are not all human products of their time?
Christ’s physical presence was facilitated by Mary’s total submission to God. So His physical morphology was of her, His culture was of the Hebrews of that pace and time. But He was not a product of them. Instead, He complied with their customs and culture rather than sprang from it. He existed forever before them and continues forever afterward with unchanging Truth.
Fr K Orwell - you are the liar, lying to yourself, shrugging off intrinsic evil that your Party promotes 24/7. You must think people are stupid and have forgotten how Pelosi demanded funding during the pandemic for the Abortionatoriums. Raising campaign funds to promote abortions after Roe v Wade was tossed? Do you think, at all?
TJM - How long have you been such an ardent supporter of the sexual abuse of women, adultery, and felonious criminal acts, things you PROVE you support by voting for Trump? Have you always shrugged off the intrinsic evil of sexual abuse of women. Have you forgotten that your cult leader, who lost the last presidential election by the way, has had multiple "marriages" and admitted that during his "marriages" he has been unfaithful? Do you think at all?
Something I ran across online,for what it is worth...
Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes referred to Gentiles as “dogs.” In Greek, this word is kuon, meaning “wild cur".
The word Jesus used (in Greek), was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.
Sophia Here: Fr. K. You do know that serial marriages and marital infidelity/adultery are not theologically, logically or philosophically equivalent to the intentional, direct killing of personally totally innocent pre-born babies, right? You are familiar with the ten commandments and that # 5 precedes # 6, correct? But you found "proportionate" reasons to vote for President Biden who not only supports abortion but is determined to expand it to the moment of birth, and to impose it on the entire nation, including those States where the citizens have voted for leadership which passed laws to limit the horror that is abortion! In my last comment/ one of my last comments on this subject, I included an excellent example of what would be considered a "proportionate" reason: A voter has to make a choice from among 3 candidates- one who advocates for unlimited killing of preborn children, at any stage of development, for any or no reason and could win, one whose policy would severely restrict but not ban all abortions and can also win and the 3rd who advocates for banning all abortions but cannot win. In such a scenario, the Catholic voter is morally obliged to vote for the candidate who advocates for severely limiting abortions although not all, because voting for the candidate who supports a total ban but cannot win could only help the candidate supporting the killing of most babies, to win. This is so logical and clear, especially since the politicians advocating for the highest number of abortions are typically also the same ones most supportive of Euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide, same sex "marriage", embryonic stem cell research, and gender affirming, hormonal and even surgical "treatment" for gender-confused children-so no opportunity for "proportionate" reasons there either! No wonder that giant of a Pope,-St Pope Pius X calls Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies" and another gift to the people of God, Pope Benedict XVl (RIP) refers to this same ideology as the "dictatorship of Relativism". Without their prism, knowledgeable (vs uninformed/ignorant) Catholics who vote the way you do, would be totally baffling. Such behavior is also a reminder that with free will comes the enormous power to do whatever we feel like doing regardless of God's Law (Biblical and Church Teaching) and worse yet- justify it! Notice I am judging only behavior- but unapologetically, I might add.
Well you supported Clinton and the Kennedy’s. Their abuse of women is legendary, Teddy even killed one, but in your mind none of that happened. Trump is a piker compared to them Oh Great Prevaricator!
Sophia, There - This disagreement is also not about which sin is greater than another. \Also, the disagreement here isn't about who voted for who or why.
TJM wants to believe that a voter cannot cast a ballot for a candidate unless that voter supports 100% of the candidate's beliefs.
That is a false belief.
Were it true, then he would PROVE by his vote for Trump, who lost the last election by the way, that he, TJM, is guilty of supporting the sexual abuse of women, adultery, and felonious criminal acts.
TJM's claim that I support abortion as health care is a lie.
Respectfully, I am neither uninformed nor ignorant. While it makes you, who see yourself as very well informed and very intelligent, feel superior to those who disagree with you, it is false. Ad hominem much?
If you vote Dem, you are voting for abortion on demand plus ruining the lives of the working classes. The Dems are the present day Bolsheviks where the rulers live in luxury and everyone else just scrapes by. Only the evil or braindead think people are better off economically under Biden compared to Trump. Father K cannot describe anything the Dems do that is good: unless he thinks sexual grooming of children and high energy prices and food prices are a positive. He is the empty cassock’s, cassock!
If you vote Trump, you are voting for the sexual abuse of women on demand plus advocating for felonious criminal acts. Trumpers are the present day Wall Street Putschers, bent on destroying trust in our form of government and installing an un-elected regime.
Having voted twice for Trump, and denying in the face of ALL evidence that Biden was elected, he has shown by his vote that he lauds and honors sexual abusers, liars, grifters, coup-plotters, and those who pull the wings off houseflies.
Fr K,
You ignore inconvenient facts: like Blue Dress/Cigar Clinton, his long list of victims, and the Kennedys, including lady killer Ted. The Bidens, like cocaine Hunter and father of an illegitimate child are major league grifters. You are either missing a few bricks or are in the pay of the DNC or Red China. A priest who votes for the Party of Abortion and Trangenderism is promoting intrinsic evil and is a joke, a sick one at that. You are unfit to serve at the altar. Trump is a Saint compared to you.
TJM - You are astounding.... Absolutely astounding.
Post a Comment