Q. Is it true that Pope Leo X (1513-1521) called the story of Christ a “fable”? — M.A., Pennsylvania.
A. No, it is not true. Writing on the Catholic Answers website (www.catholic.com), Michelle Arnold said:
“Although the quote is commonly attributed without source documentation to Pope Leo X, it is believed to have originated in a satirical piece titled ‘The Pageant of the Popes’ by a Protestant controversialist named John Bale (1495-1563). Bale wrote: ‘For on a time when a Cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer, saying, “All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie”.’”
Q. Saying that nothing is impossible for God prompts the question, “Can God do anything?” It would seem that the only pious answer is that nothing is impossible for God. Yet, upon closer examination it is clear that God cannot do everything, for He cannot do anything which contradicts His nature or character. All things are possible for God as long as they do not contradict His character or nature. How would you answer? — J.H.G., Illinois.
A. Pretty much as you did. To those who want to know if God could make a rock so big that He could not lift it, to use a famous example, the answer is no because this would contradict His nature. God can bring something out of nothing, as He did with the universe, but He cannot do something that is contrary to reality or to His omnipotence. Just as He cannot make a square circle because that is impossible, so, too, He cannot make a stone too big to lift because that is impossible.
Q. I read a lot about hermeneutics. It is defined in Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 248) as “the art and science of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures and of inquiring into their true meaning. It defines the laws that exegetes are to follow in order to determine and explain the sense of the revealed word of God. It presupposes that the interpreter has a knowledge of the biblical languages and of such sciences as contribute to a better understanding of Holy Writ.” This sounds like arcane jargon to me. Would you kindly enlighten me? How does hermeneutics differ from exegesis? — L.G., via e-mail.
A. While the definition offered by Fr. Hardon may be hard to understand, it is not arcane in the sense of secret or mysterious. Perhaps the following, and briefer, definition of hermeneutics from Fr. Albert Nevins’ Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary might be helpful: “The science that treats of the principles upon which the correct interpretation of the Bible is based.”
As for exegesis, Fr. Hardon defines that word this way:
“The art and science of investigating and expressing the true sense of Sacred Scripture. Its function is to find out what exactly a given passage of the Bible says. Its rules are governed by the science of hermeneutics, whose practical application is the concern of exegesis. Given the depth and complexity of the biblical text, biblical exegesis has been practiced from pre-Christian times.”
In other words, hermeneutics sets forth the principles to be used when interpreting the Bible, such as knowledge of biblical languages and the cultures in which the various books of Scripture were composed, and it relies on three criteria that are summarized in Scott Hahn’s Catholic Bible Dictionary:
“1. The content and unity of the whole of Scripture. By this we are called to interpret the Bible as a unified book that reveals God’s unified plan of salvation. The OT must not be isolated from the NT or set in opposition to the NT. Likewise, the NT must not be interpreted without reference to the OT upon which it builds. Thus, the context in which any passage of Scripture should be interpreted is the full canon of biblical books.
“2. The living Tradition of the whole Church. By this we are called to interpret the Bible with reference to the Church’s ongoing efforts, stretching across centuries, to discern its authentic meaning. Account must be taken of liturgical tradition, of the theology and exegesis of the Church’s doctors and saints, and of the authoritative pronouncements of popes and Church councils ….
“3. The analogy of faith. By this we are called to interpret the Bible with reference to the Church’s doctrines and creeds. Insofar as these communicate truths divinely revealed and definitively known, they establish limits on the interpretation of Scripture and thus serve as a safeguard against misinterpretation.”
Only when these principles have been taken into account can the exegete tell us exactly what a particular passage means. Although he didn’t use the word “hermeneutics,” Pope St. John Paul II connected the two words when he said in 1991 that “the Bible has certainly been written in human language. Its interpretation requires the methodical use of the science of language. But it is also God’s word. Exegesis would be seriously incomplete if it did not shed light on the theological significance of Scripture.”
Finally, the exegete, and all those would attempt to interpret Holy Scripture, must heed the words of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum, n. 10):
“The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [Magisterium], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
Q. I disagree with your answer to the question about the Society of St. Pius X. How can it be in schism if it only believed what the Church has always taught and respects the Pope as the head of the Church? I go to the Novus Ordo Mass because that is all we have in Los Angeles, but I think one day Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be made a saint. — L.V., California.
A. According to canon law (canon 751), schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” So when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four priests as bishops in 1988, without the mandate of the Holy Father and contrary to his will, he committed the schismatic act of refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff. We don’t think that this action could be characterized as showing respect for the Pope as head of the Church.
There are also doctrinal questions involved in the schism. For example, in a document issued on June 17, 2013, the 25th anniversary of the ordination of the four bishops, the SSPX leadership said that the documents of Vatican II contain “grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church.” They said among other things that “the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities”; that the Church is being “shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing more from the state than that which the Masonic lodges wish to concede to her”; and that the Mass of Pope Paul VI “is penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross.”
The document said that Vatican II “inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas.”
We would suggest that it is the SSPX that has inaugurated a new type of magisterium, one in conflict with the only Church to which Christ gave the authority to teach in His name.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress