Rev. John O'Brien Found Wanting in One Thing (If it wasn't Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, FSSPX)

1. Is the Bible a book of science?

The Bible is not a book of science, and was never intended to answer the purpose of a book of science.

2. Does the Bible teach anything that has to do with science?

Yes, the Bible mentions many things that have to do with science.

3. Name one biblical account that touches on science.

The account of the Creation in the Book of Genesis touches on many branches of science.

4. Does not the Bible contain many things that science has proved false?

Since God is the author of the Bible and also, the foundation of true science, the Bible cannot err when it touches on science.

5. How, then, are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and science?

In many ways, for example: some so-called scientific findings are false; others are mere unsubstantiated theories (Evolution); while still others, when properly examined, do not contradict the biblical narrative.

6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?

No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun and not vice-versa.

Now, Joshua 10:13 is it stood by itself might be so interpreted.

It comes after Joshua 10:12.

In Joshua 10:12, we have a historical statement of what Joshua said when working the miracle:

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

Why does this not bear the explanation "in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms"?

Because, if it was Earth that stopped turning, Joshua as miracle worker would have been adressing the words by which he worked the miracle to the wrong agent.

Every other miracle elsewhere in the Bible, whoever works the miracle (whether Christ or someone else) is adressing what needs to be adressed, not some other thing.

It would have sufficed to make the boat stand still in the storm, Christ could have told the boat to stand still instead - but He told the wind and waves to calm down, and they did so. And the boat with them. We do not see Him adressing the boat and then the waves and winds stand still instead, nor the waves and winds and only the boat stands still. What He adressed is what obeyed His command.

One cannot except the leper and "be thou made clean" where it says "the leprosy was made clean" in one Gospel : both the leprosy and he were "made clean" but in different ways. If it had been washing, it is as if the leprosy had been washed off, while the man had been washed pure. Washed off and washed pure are related but diverse concepts related to the verb wash. Now, since there was no water, just the word, the miracle working word of the Word, the verb "make clean" replaces this. Of both one could say they were "made clean" so Christ is not adressing the wrong body in speaking to the leper.

And whoever pretends that there were no demons, only a mental illness in the man before whose face Christ spoke "get out of him", is a heretic. This heresy was already around as far as I can recall in the late 19th C. among modernist Lutherans in Sweden.

Therefore we cannot accept that Joshua in verse 12 spoke to the wrong entity.

Apart from that one thing, I do not find Rev. John O'Brien very wanting.

A Catechism of the Bible, By Rev. John O'Brien, M.A., New York 1924
Revised and enlarged by Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, FSSPX, St. Mary's, Kansas 1997
Copyright © 1997, 2003. Jaime Pazat De Lys (posted here with permission)
http://drbo.org/catechism.htm

And cited here as per Fair Use.

Minor error, not of principle in interpretation, but of fact:

Lesson 16: 10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.

The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.

I do not know even one single Protestant version that omitted the Epistle of St. James. Luther kind of wanted to but didn't get through with it.

Is there a warning against me, when I expound on Biblical history or Bible and science?

Lesson 14:1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?

The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: "... hard to be understood ..." (II Pet. III,16).

2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?

The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

It so happens, Biblical history is not traditionally considered to be among these things "hard to be understood". Those that are are some technical details about salvation issues and commandments and laws.

Two pre-Protestant and fully Catholic printed French translations involve one complete Bible and one "Bible historiée" - that is, Biblical history. The sequence of events. This means, Biblical history has never been among the matters where priests can tell laymen to "brush off, this is reserved for us". Unless, obviously, the laymen are actually contradicting Biblical history. But in my case, I am contradictng certain priests who are contradicting it, I am defending Biblical history. In lesson 13, Rev. John O'Brien had stated

The Bible is not an historical book per se; it is primarily a religious book; but it does contain a certain amount of historical teaching

This is understated : in a Vulgate or Douay Rheims, I have found the majority of chapters as being historical books' chapters.
/as previous, Hans Georg Lundahl

Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

Asaph Vapor kept asking "where does it say successors?" · Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

If we are Christians, yes, we do need traditions from Christ over His Apostles, that are not in the New Testament directly.

Here is why.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: (Matthew 28:20)

What do these include among other things?

[25] Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. Luke 24.

So, Christological OT exegesis is included. Note "all the prophets".

But we do have some Christological comment in the New Testament, isn't that enough?

No.

It is tenuously possible to imagine that the canonic books of the New Testament refers back explicitly to each book of the Old Testament, though I don't think it is quite likely.

But it is very certain, we do not have references explicitly back to most passages and verses in the Old Testament, within this canon.

So, do we need that?

For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. John 5:46

One can also translate the Latin "for (it was) of me (that) he wrote".

We must therefore assume:

• all of the Old Testament refers to Jesus Christ
• all of it was exposed to the Apostles (those on the way to Emmaus and others)
• all of it was meant to be transmitted through the ages by the Apostles with their successors (see previous)
• and all of it is not simply there by referring to standard Jewish (as the word is now used) exegesis, since the Jews do not refer it to Jesus Christ.

Also, the bare text of the Old Testament is not enough, since the Jews have that too (but call it "the Bible" rather than "the Old Testament"). It is also too large a corpus to be written down in the New Testament.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Barbara
4.XII.2020