Born Fundamentalists, Born again Catholics.. please answer me this!

[pnewton]

carol marie:

See, at least as a Sounthern Baptist I could KNOW what my Pastor believes… it’s all there in the statement of faith and if he were to deviate even slightly the elders would pitch a fit and he’d be ousted. I know if I’m a member of a Southern Baptist Church I’m going to be learning Southern Baptist Theology - nothing more, nothing less. Granted, you could argue what’s the benefit in learning Sounthern Baptist Theology if it’s not the Truth (no Eucharist etc.) but what gets me is I was interested in the Catholic Church because I mistakenly thought it was unified - not broken in thousand pieces like the Protestant faiths. But now I’ve come to find out that so isn’t the case.

First let me note that we are unified in communion, not thought. We have the unity of the body, where the parts can not be identical to work together. We do not have the unity of an assembly line where everyone thinks exactly alike.

The problem is how far of a variance is allowed before one ceases to be Catholic. Kerry floats out to the extreme and still considers himself a Catholic. I, too, believe that at least as far as priest and bishops are concerned it is far more pastoral to use more discipline than Rome has used, but I might have a different perspective if I was the one making the decisions.

As far as the SBC is concerned, rest assured they too have their liberals, de-mythologizers and “heretics”. This movement toward denying the miraculous and even the inerrancy of scripture started amoung the Protestant theologians and spread. Faithful Catholics have more in common with our faithful Protestant brothers than we do our fringe element Catholics.In the 70’s the SBC couldn’t muster a majority to make the statement that the Bible even was inerrant.

Peter Kreeft’s Ecumenical Jihad does a good job of explaining this and made was helpful for me in making the same transition.

Bear in mind also, that in the Catholic Church, priests have to spend more time being “educated.” Seminaries in all denominations have often been the bastions of dissent.

 

[Sherlock]

Carol Marie,

You asked, “How am I supposed to be taught? I don’t have access to the Pope every Sunday… my option is the local Catholic Church and I have no IDEA if my Priests are in union with the Pope or way off in left field thinking the Bible is a bunch of myths etc.”

Do you have a Catechism? It is the “sure norm” (as JPll calls it) for Church teaching. If what your particular pastor is in line with what is taught there, then you’re probably OK. Remember that in Catholicism there is considerable freedom in nonessentials, though consistency in doctrine is required. Whether someone is consistent with doctrine can be determined by comparison to the Catechism.

You wrote: “How am I supposed to trust my children to a church that can’t even control what the Priests & Wayward Bishops are dishing out? See, at least as a Sounthern Baptist I could KNOW what my Pastor believes… it’s all there in the statement of faith and if he were to deviate even slightly the elders would pitch a fit and he’d be ousted.”

That might work OK for the Southern Baptists, whose denomination is relatively small (compared to a billion Catholics), and to whom the idea of splitting off to form one’s own church is not a scandalous concept. Think of the Catholic Church as a family: we have wayward brothers and sisters, but we’re stuck with them. We don’t split off and form new “families” when they tick us off. Now, in different times and with different individuals, disciplinary styles varies: I personally would like to see more heads roll, but that’s me. Basically, I can’t work myself up into anxiety because the Church has gone through all of this before and survived. The Church isn’t going anywhere, and isn’t going to teach false doctrine, and even if you may have to go to a different parish to get solid orthodoxy, hey, it’s worth it. If you have to put up with heterodoxy, well, do what you can to correct the priest and RCIA teachers, then leave it to God. And again, if you want to know what the Church teaches, pick up a Catechism. If you don’t have one, let me know (e-mail me privately) and I will send you one as a gift.

 

[bones_IV]

I think its ignorant to say, that the Bible is whole bunch of myths. Some parts are meant to be taken literally and others you to go beneath the surface. I think its really stupid to say that Gospels did not literally happen. If the Gospels did not literally happen, then I guess Jesus never rose again on the third day. Of course he rose again on the third day. To say that the Gospels did not literally happen is like saying that the Pharissees, sadducees and chief priests never conspired against Jesus in the first place. Those people were wicked and desired to kill him. I believe that the earth was created in seven days literally, that Jesus literally fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. Let me ask you this why would holy spirit write down stuff that isn’t true? Then I suppose the flood never happened did it. The ark was found in Turkey by the way. I really have to question the faith of some of you. I just want you see how rediculously stupid the idea of “the Gospels did not literally happen” really does sound.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

 

[Sherlock]

Bones, (and Carol Marie),

The Church teaches that the Gospels do relate historical truth: Jesus did feed thousands with just 5 loaves and two fish; He did change the water into wine, and He did rise from the dead.

However, there are different ways of conveying truth, and some parts of the Bible (not the New Testament) may be using figurative language to convey truths, as the ancients did not always write history as we do. Jesus, by the way, does the same thing himself when He uses parables: he tells a story (which may not be factual, literal history) to convey a truth.

 

[martino]

Carol, read what the CCC says regarding Scripture; I am sure that once you understand what the Church actually teaches (not those that claim to represent the Church), you will find the peace that your are looking for.

 

[bones_IV]

Sherlock:

Bones, (and Carol Marie),

The Church teaches that the Gospels do relate historical truth: Jesus did feed thousands with just 5 loaves and two fish; He did change the water into wine, and He did rise from the dead.

However, there are different ways of conveying truth, and some parts of the Bible (not the New Testament) may be using figurative language to convey truths, as the ancients did not always write history as we do. Jesus, by the way, does the same thing himself when He uses parables: he tells a story (which may not be factual, literal history) to convey a truth.

thanks sherlock

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

 

[carol_marie]

Sherlock & all others concerned for me,

I actually do have the big green Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I was all upset last night over the Cardinal thinking that good Muslums & Buddists can get to heaven apart from Jesus my husband pulled it out and looked up the sections that talked about salvation apart from Jesus just to help me calm down. I love that book. Everything I read makes perfect sense to me - even with my Fundamentalist brain.

This is what I’ve decided. Although I’ve learned quite a bit from these forums I need to cut the cord so to speak. I get too freaked out when I read posts by other exCatholic Fundamentalists who claim that the Catholic Church is full of errors and NOT Biblical. They are using language I am familar with, saying things I’ve heard before and it rocks me to the core. I begin to think, “Oh my God… what have I done? I’ve forsaken You!” And that scares me like you wouldn’t believe. Add to that, Catholics who spout their own liberal, watered down brand of Catholisism who tell me I could pitch the Bible and it wouldn’t matter - that it’s a bunch of myths etc. and before you know it I’m wanting to high tail it back to my old church. I am just too fragile in this whole Catholic journey to hear about the Pope kissing the Koran, Cardinals who don’t share Christ, the mess that Vatican II made and all the other voices of discent.

I’m going to continue with my RCIA class, it’s actually very good. I’m going to continue to look up my questions in the Catechism and I’m going to continue to read my Bible. And I’m going to continue to love Jesus with all of my heart.

So that’s it for me friends. I’m not going to post or come to these forums for a very very long time. I think I’ll be better off. Please say a prayer that I make it to the place where God wants me.
Thanks for listening & for your help
God Bless you all (even you exCatholic)
~ Shari (“Carol Marie”)

 

[rayne89]

I was thinking about you last night as i went to bed after I read your post in one of excatholics threads. I think you made a good discision. Grow and deepen your faith, allow God to strenghten your trust in his church. You have not been lead astray.

When my husband was in the process of conversion satan put such an attack on our marriage because he knows where the truth lies. But God has blessed us such much in our faithfulness to Him and His church. The Catholic church is the most attacked Christian church. Why? Because Satan knows where the truth lies, he knows Jesus is present in the tabernacle. Satan hates the truth and will seek to distroy it but “the gates of hell will not prevail” against Christ’s church.

I will keep you in my prayers and hope to see you back here someday. God Bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patricius:

In the original languages, the Bible didn’t have any commas at all, or punctuation of any sort, did it?

The OT had no vowels either - not until they were added between 600 and 900 AD​

Both the OT and NT began by BEINGWRITTENINCAPITALSLIKETHIS - without separation of words. Except that the NT TEXTHADVOWELS

whereas

THLDTSTMENTTXTWSWRITTNWTHTTHM - like that.

Fortunately, the vocalisation of the OT could be worked pretty easily. The problems come when words such as emeq appear - there are words which are the same in sound and writing, but different in meaning; and this is an example: there are at least two words read and written and vocalised as emeq, one meaning “valley”, one meaning “strength”.

Some letters in Hebrew are hard to tell apart, such as daleth and resh - these have the values of D & R respectively. And the present square script used in Hebrew is only the most recent; the shapes of the letters have evolved, so there has been plenty of time for letters to be confused with one another.

All of which makes the notion of the text “as originally given” rather empty of meaning. Unless it can somehow be refined a bit to take account of these facts, & others. ##

 

[dcdurel]

carol marie:

And yet over & over again I’m told that if someone rejects the official Catholic Teaching they aren’t Catholic. Why aren’t they given the boot? Why allow wayward teachers, Priests, Bishops, etc. to remain in their positions? Sorry to ramble… this original post was aimed at converts… if you’ve been Catholic your entire life my frustration probably goes right over your head? As a possible convert I guess I’m bummed that the AWESOME church I read about in the apologetic books takes a magnifying glass to actually find. Weeding out all the conflicting opinions has me worn out.

 I know it is hard.

Dissedents are allowed to remain because dissident bishops still exist. Also because if the Pope kicked them all out, then good, but ignorant Catholics would leave also. The Pope has been trying to appoint good bishops to replace the bad ones, but until 10 years ago, he was given bad advice on who would make a good bishop.

Here is a little history. Once Pope Leo XIII was given a vision in which Satan would be allowed to infiltrate the Church during the 20’th century. He was so horrified, he came up with a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel asking him to protect us against the wicked snares of the devil, which we would all pray after mass. Then we quit.
Anyway, the errors of the devil infiltrated the Chuch in the 20’th century, first in Europe, then last in the US. We are still recovering from those errors, thus there are still dissendents, a few bad priests, and lots of bad bishops in the Church. There are lots of good priests, who received horrible seminary training, and thus they don’t even know what the Church really teaches, and there are a few really excellent bishops who are turning things around slowly.
During this time there were NO good scripture scholars like Scott Hahn, who were well known. Father William Most was the best and he was ostracized by the Catholic educational elite. The best known scholar was Raymond Brown and he rejected just about every apostolic tradition handed down from the apostles, and introduced all kinds of errors. He finally died.
Scott Hahn, James Akin, Tim Staples, and others and the others are the new wave of scripture scholars who are teaching the truth again. They are so good that dissedents are forced into silence because of their ignorance.
But there are still lots of ignorant Catholics who picked up errors, and who still teach RCIA and who teach in schools. Thus it is necessary for every Catholic to study writings of the Church Fathers, study Church teachings (those approved by the Pope) such as the catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, Encyclicals, etc, and study the bible to back up those teachings and support those teachings. Since God has given you a desire to know the truth, use that desire to learn the truth. Of course you NEED Gods grace to learn and understand that truth, and the Eucharist is the primary source of that grace. Then you can convert those ignorant and dissent Catholics and maybe help others who are coming into the Church. What could be a better use of your free time?

 

[jeffreedy789]

if you happen to come back into the forum, carol marie, know that i prayed a rosary for you last night, and that you’re in my thoughts and prayers.

don’t be afraid. trust Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dcdurel:

Where does the Church teach that the bible isn’t true, or that it is a collection of prevaling myths?
You are confusing the opinions of Catholics with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[cut]

There has never, never, never been an infallible Catholic theologian or scripture scholar.

That is true - in part.​

BTW - why encourage anyone to read Fr. Most ? He was “only” a theologian - and theologians, we are told, are utterly untrustworthy. Therefore, he is utterly untrustworthy.

If he is not utterly untrustworthy - maybe other theologians are not, either.

Maybe they have something to contribute.

Maybe they do not deserve the accusations of which they are the target.

Maybe the Popes are acting wisely and well in nominating scholars and exegetes of the calibre of Father Brown to the PBC.

All these, are true.

Or maybe the Popes are incompetent morons who are too thick or too heretical to appoint decent Catholics.

Indiscriminate criticism of scholars is not far removed from despairing of the Popes who honour their scholarship. Don’t go there. ##

Thus, Catholic theologians and scripture scholars are totally, and absolutely untrustworthy,

This is a great exaggeration, and undermines the Roman Theological Forum and Cardinal Ratzinger as thoroughly as it undermines Fathers Brown, de Vaux, and others who have brought honour to the Church by their learning and love of Scripture.​

It is also very unjust to a great number of scholars - why should they bother with Scripture and the sciences auxiliary to it, if all they get in return is contempt and ingratitude from the very people for whose benefit they work ? ##

especially those who reject the authority of the Pope. Even the saints and doctors of the Church were not infalliible, but at least the recognized this fact and said they submitted everything they wrote to the judgement of the Church.

J-M. Lagrange O.P. (1855-1938) made fulll use of critical scholarship, with discernment and great learning, and all this in a spirit of that very submission. He was able to discern what was valuable in the Biblical Criticism of his time from what was not. He suffered from those who hated everything to do with Biblical Criticism. He is a model for those of us who sometimes are tempted to despair today of similar attitudes.​

He is now being considered for beatification.

Saints have been persecuted by the Church they served before - he is only a recent example of this. St. John of the Cross was another, St. Alphonsus Liguori a third. Ther are certain to be more. If something is “of God”, it will not be overthrown - even if it is highly unwelcome. ##

On the other hand, no Pope has ever taught error when teaching as the Pope, when teaching all Christians on things pertaining to faith or morals. In other words, the Pope’s have always been infallible when teaching for the whole Church. That is because Jesus gave teaching authority to the office of Peter and the apostles ALONE. Jesus gave no teaching authority to scripture scholars, theologians, etc. And Jesus made the teaching authority of Peter above all the other apostles.
Thus, if you want to know what the Church teaches about the bible, the last place you want to is Catholic scripture scholars or theologians, priests, bishops, etc. NONE are infallible when not in union with the Pope.

Bishops are the divinely-appointed teachers in the Church. Teaching is part of their mission. The Pope is the supreme human teacher in the CC - not the only teacher. The true Teacher of us all is Our Lord - see St. Thomas on this​

 

[Gratias_Grace]

carol marie:

When I decided to make the jump from my Fundamentalist background to the Catholic Church I knew I would be “adding” things to my faith… like Mary, the Saints, the Real Presence etc. but I mistakenly assumed that I would be able to take all I knew about the Bible WITH ME! I mistakenly believed that Catholics believed the Bible to be true. I was wrong. Over & over again I’m told that various parts of the Bible AREN’T historical - didn’t happen, just made up “stories.” First Genesis, and now the Gospels. I’m asking all of you former Bible believing Protestants… how were you able to disregard the truth of the Bible? How are you able to say that many parts of it didn’t happen actually happen - that it’s mostly a collection of literary forms? I’m not able to do that.

I have been praying for discernment. Please Lord… don’t let me be led astray. I’m begining to feel like the frog in the pot. (You know… if it’s throw into the boiling water it was jump out but if it’s placed in the water & the temp. is slowly turned up it doesn’t jump out but it dies nonetheless.) Little red flags have been thrown up all along and I’ve pushed them aside. I think God is using this as my giant wake up call. I just can’t accept that the Bible isn’t true… that it’s a collection of prevaling myths and literary forms. How could all of you?

Hey Carol Marie!

As a convert myself I know that it is not an easy prosess to go through. I have never been a fundamentalist, but I know from discussions with them that they take every word in the Bible as it stands. But do we always mean literally what we say?

If I say that I will take my hat off for you, you know that my intention is to tell you that I admire something you have done. My intention is NOT to take off my hat (I don’t use one), but to give you a compliment. If you had taken it literally, you would have missed the point.

You would not have known that you were complimented!

You can trust in God. :bowdown: HE lead you to the Catholic Church. HE would not do that if it was the wrong Church. Jesus only founded ONE Church and that Church was the Catholic Church!

Sometimes people get depressed after a convertion, especially if the convertion has gone quicker than the “readyness”. Pray and pray and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not for individual understanding only for you, but for help to understand the CATHOLIC THRUTH. Not every “old catholic” (born into Church because of catholic parents) know their faith well.

You must try to find a catholic priest who are used to converts. He will help you. If the first you find don’t understand you, try an other one.

First of all you have to let the Lord stay by your side when you grieve over that the earth is not literally 6000 yeras as you proberly have thought.

A good article about the age of the earth is “The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary”:

asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html

I want to reccomend the Biblestudies at Catholic Exchange. If you hurry up you will find their study on Genesis:

www.catholicexchange.com/

Most of all I want to reccomand this book. It is a MUST for a convert:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964261065/qid=1099772715/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2956148-5317769?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

(Please overlook any spellingmistakes. English is not my first language).

**I have already sent a prayer for you Carol Marie! **

(As they say at Catholic jukebox at EWTN): Remember the Lord loves you and his Church does it, too! :dancing: :clapping: :dancing:

All The best and God Bless!

G.G.

 

[Michael_C]

carol marie:

I actually do have the big green Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I was all upset last night over the Cardinal thinking that good Muslums & Buddists can get to heaven apart from Jesus my husband pulled it out and looked up the sections that talked about salvation apart from Jesus just to help me calm down. I love that book. Everything I read makes perfect sense to me - even with my Fundamentalist brain.

This is what I’ve decided. Although I’ve learned quite a bit from these forums I need to cut the cord so to speak. I get too freaked out when I read posts by other exCatholic Fundamentalists who claim that the Catholic Church is full of errors and NOT Biblical. They are using language I am familar with, saying things I’ve heard before and it rocks me to the core. I begin to think, “Oh my God… what have I done? I’ve forsaken You!” And that scares me like you wouldn’t believe. Add to that, Catholics who spout their own liberal, watered down brand of Catholisism who tell me I could pitch the Bible and it wouldn’t matter - that it’s a bunch of myths etc. and before you know it I’m wanting to high tail it back to my old church. I am just too fragile in this whole Catholic journey to hear about the Pope kissing the Koran, Cardinals who don’t share Christ, the mess that Vatican II made and all the other voices of discent.

So that’s it for me friends. I’m not going to post or come to these forums for a very very long time. I think I’ll be better off. Please say a prayer that I make it to the place where God wants me.
Thanks for listening & for your help
God Bless you all (even you exCatholic)
~ Shari (“Carol Marie”)

Dear Carol Marie, I’m sorry to see you go. Sometimes a person taking a simple approach and saying “my husband pulled it out and looked up the sections that talked about salvation apart from Jesus just to help me calm down. I love that book. Everything I read makes perfect sense to me” is the best form of apologetics. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is valuable and I hope to see your common sense contributions more. God Bless you too.

 

[Philthy]

carol marie:

Jesus would never call me to a church that didn’t uphold the Bible because as you said, it’s His Word.

But, maybe you are right about me and I will never make a good Catholic. I recognize that I trust in the Bible and believe it will lead me to Jesus. I think Catholics trust not in the Bible but in their Church to lead them to Jesus? And I’m willing to trust the Church - don’t get me wrong. I’m willing to allow the Church to explain the Bible to me, and I’m told that Tradition mirrors the Scriptures so I thought I’d be OK. I can’t disregard the Bible though. Never.

Carol -

You’re going in circles! Lighten up a little - no one is asking you to forsake the Bible. Have you forgotten where you got your Bible in the first place? The Church. You wouldn’t even have a Bible without the Church - then where would you be? Same place virtually all Christians found themselves for the first 1000 years of Christianity - entirely dependent on the Church to provide them with Scripture and Truth. Take a deep breath and think about it…

Phil

 

[CARose]

Carol Marie,

Please know that you are Loved here on the forum and your (name removed by moderator)ut has been valued by many of us. I appreciate your decision to leave, although I am sad to see you go.

I hope that in some small way, we have helped you in your journey into the Church. I know that I have felt attacked by the Devil, just as he works to tempt you from the peace you desire through knowing with certainty that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ speaks of in the Bible. I believe with every fiber in my being that it is, and I believe that the Holy Spirit has brought you this far for a reason.

Because of your deep Love of Christ and your willingness and desire to serve Him. Continue to pray, continue to study. I asaw a quote earlier and I know I’m botching it up. It was something like “An uninformed decision is of little value”, but I think it was actually more like “An unintellectually supported belief …” argh, anyone else have it. The point is, while we don’t always get to every aspect of accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church by first understanding it, once we have determined to believe it, we owe it to ourselves to continue to inform ourselves as to why we believe what we’ve committed ourselves to believing.

We need to protect ourselves against the work of the devil. God is Truth, as such, God’s Truth is consistant with the other truths we know of the world. So the more we look into the beliefs we have trouble with, the better prepared we are to defend them.

But don’t be afraid to know that this is a lifetime endeavor and you don’t need to complete the entire course of study before Easter. If you can come to a place where you are comfortable that what you know is consistant with the God you Love and the Catholic Church provides the fullness of this Truth, then know it is good to proceed and enter the Church. God loves you, exactly the way you are and is more than ready to share with you the Graces provided through the sacraments. And what incredible Graces they are!

As for your concerns regarding the dissidents within the Church. Pray for them. Help them when it is appropriate to do so. But do not let yourself be destracted from the beauty of the Church He has provided and protected for all mankind.

The weeds and the wheat grow side by side and they will be sorted at the Harvest. Don’t worry about it, simply strive to be the wheat. Don’t be afraid to die to your sins so that you may rise again in Glory, as did Christ. Help others, but pay more attention to your own ills than those of others. If we are not careful, any of us could be a weed, choking out others with our own sinful behaviors. So, we leave the sorting to God and work to bring His Kingdom to Earth in what ever little way we can. And pray is the most valuable of all things we can do, for truly all Power resides in Him and deluding ourselves on this is mere folly.

I hope to see you around.

Continue to go with the Love of Christ,

CARose

 

[CARose]

I found the quote. It was in Karl Keatings e-letter that went out today. I knew I’d just read it. It goes like this, “an unintellectual salvation means an unsaved intellect.” The point is, when we go through what many Saints have encountered, a Dark Soul of the Night, where they don’t feel all warm and fuzzy, we need a well informed intellect to hold us true to our course.

God cannot Lie, the Liar speaks with just enough truth to cause us to pause and slip off course. Stay the course, follow God, He’ll never let you down.

CARose

 

[James224]

Hi Carol Marie,

I understand where you’re coming from. At our parish, we have a bible study that’s been going on weekly for years and I’ve been a part of it. We use the “Little Rock Series” and right now we are studing Genesis - we’re up to chapter 35. Although much of the commentary is great, they like to use what I think is formerly called “Textual Criticism”. This is a legitimate subject but sometimes they stray too far and seemingly deny the events, especially in the early chapters of Genesis. This is all speculative. They say we borrowed the “Story” from the ancient Babylonians as to what is said in Genesis with a few exceptions. I use the Haydock Commentary which is very Traditional and, putting the two togeather, the answer is this: This may be true but the thing to understand is this - This Babylonian version is PROOF that Genesis is true and real. There was no copying, rather, it backs up the historical acccounts of Genesis. The Church believes in the literal accounts of Genesis and this can be seen in the Early Church Fathers. Sometimes modern commentaries use the word “Myth” but they really use it in its historical meaning which is that it really happened. In American culture, the word “Myth” means “Made up” but not in its historical meaning. This is why I wish this word wasn’t used. Of course, what literally happened has deeper spiritual meanings. I think that is the Catholic view.

May God bless,

James224

 

[dcdurel]

## That is true - in part.

BTW - why encourage anyone to read Fr. Most ? He was “only” a theologian - and theologians, we are told, are utterly untrustworthy. Therefore, he is utterly untrustworthy.
If he is not utterly untrustworthy - maybe other theologians are not, either.
Maybe they have something to contribute.

Sure they do, but you cannot trust everything they write. Even Father Most had a few errors. Only the Popes and the few bishops in union with him are infallible and have been infallible. I love reading Father Most, but If I suspect something he wrote is not correct, then I check it out with what the Popes have written.

Maybe they do not deserve the accusations of which they are the target.

Of course they do. And the more they reject the authority of the Church, the more errors they had. Father Most totally accepted the authority of the Church, thus he had very few errors. Raymond Brown rejected the absolute authority of the Church, never explicitly, but in practice, thus he has errors in almost every paragraph he wrote.
If even the most brilliant mind such as St. Thomas Aquinas submitted everything he wrote to the authority of the Church, because he knew he was not infallible, how much more should we hesitate to believe anything modern theologians and scripture scholars write, when from the beginning they belittle the teachings of the Popes and the constant tradition of the Church.

Maybe the Popes are acting wisely and well in nominating scholars and exegetes of the calibre of Father Brown to the PBC.

The Popes are totally and absolutely infallible when they teach for the whole Church. I trust all their infallible teachings totally.
In matters of governing, the Church has never, never, never, ever taught they are infallible. They have made error, after error, after error in matters of governing.
Who do you think appointed all these bad bishops we have today?
Who do you think appointed the bishops who supported Arian during the Arian heresy?
The Popes rely on advisors in matters of governing and they can easily be misled and have been misled for 2000 years. That is the way Jesus formed His Church. We must accept that fact and quit living in a polyanna world where every dissident the Pope appoints is somehow infallible, while at the same time we reject and limit to every way possible the totaly infallible teachings of the same Pope which contradict the teachings of the same dissident he appoints.

Or maybe the Popes are incompetent morons who are too thick or too heretical to appoint decent Catholics.

The Popes simply cannot know everything about everyone.
They rely on their advisors. Advisors often don’t have a great love of Jesus or His Church. Other factors, which we don’t always know about, prevent Popes from acting agains bad bishops and bad theologians. If the people support bad bishops or theologians, it is hard for the Pope to act. He needs the support of Catholics who care about the truth. And people who put their blind faith in theologians or scripture scholars don’t care for the truth.

 

[dcdurel]

I said “Thus, Catholic theologians and scripture scholars are totally, and absolutely untrustworthy”
You wrote:

This is a great exaggeration, and undermines the Roman
Theological Forum and Cardinal Ratzinger as thoroughly as it undermines Fathers Brown, de Vaux, and others who have brought honour to the Church by their learning and love of Scripture.

Total nonsense. Name a single scripture scholar or theologian who hasn’t taught any error. If they are not infallible, how can we trust them?
The sad part is the Raymond Brown and his type taught DELIBERATE errors. They knew they were opposing Church teaching. They knew they were opposing Sacred Tradition.
Raymond Brown had no love of God’s word handed down in Sacred Tradition. And those who believed the word of God in Sacred Tradition were called “Ultra conservatives” and other disparaging terms.

It is also very unjust to a great number of scholars - why should they bother with Scripture and the sciences auxiliary to it, if all they get in return is contempt and ingratitude from the very people for whose benefit they work ?

I have contempt for their horrible deceitful scholarship. I do not judge their guilt. Who knows, perhaps they are really saints, and God withdrew His grace from them for a time, simply to show people like me how much we need the Popes. I used to think that the Popes were mere figureheads and I just read the popular scholars. But after a few years of reading error after error, and always rationalizing sin, disobedience, rejection of Church authority, etc., I have learned through experience not to trust a single one. Especially those who belittle the Popes and Church authority and Sacred Tradition.
I think one of the greatest theologians and teachers is Father Hardon who died not too long ago. I love to listen to His tapes, especially on the Eucharist. I have learned more from Him than any other single Catholic in the Church. Mother Teresa said he was the holiest priest she had ever met. She chose him to teach her sisters. Yet, I try to find backing for everything he teaches in Church documents. I have not found an error yet, but again, he is NOT infallible.

J-M. Lagrange O.P. (1855-1938) made fulll use of critical scholarship, with discernment and great learning, and all this in a spirit of that very submission. He was able to discern what was valuable in the Biblical Criticism of his time from what was not. He suffered from those who hated everything to do with Biblical Criticism. He is a model for those of us who sometimes are tempted to despair today of similar attitudes.​

He is now being considered for beatification.
Saints have been persecuted by the Church they served before - he is only a recent example of this. St. John of the Cross was another, St. Alphonsus Liguori a third. Ther are certain to be more. If something is “of God”, it will not be overthrown - even if it is highly unwelcome. ##

I said nothing about rejecting biblical critisism.  It is some of those who use it who are deceitful in their work. Father Most used biblical criticism.

The Church has said nothing about Raymond Brown and the others who promoted error. Thus, how can you compare them to St. John of the Cross, who was NOT persecuted by “the Church” but by some members of the Church.
It is not that Raymond Brown’s scholarship was unwelcome. The problem is that it is simply not true. For example, Raymond Brown promoted women priests. Yet, there is nothing in scripture to support women priests. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Thus, he couldn’t use scripture to support his idea. So, he resorted to rhetoric and called those who believed like him, “progressive”, “enlightened”, and those who held to Scripture and Tradition as “ultra-conservative”. And the whole time implying that his position was based on scholarship. Pure deceit.