Father Raymond Brown

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lorarose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fidelis:
None of this so far addresses the fair question that was originally brought up: why is it that those in open dissent of the Catholic Church seem to have an affinity for Fr Brown’s work?

Coincidence? Because dissenters are smarter than the orthodox? Affirmation? Why? :confused:
Click to expand...
What about my idea that, e.g., many orthodox Catholics don’t admit the authorship of II Peter as a valid subject of inquiry, and thus don’t appreciate much of Fr. Brown’s scholarship, whereas those who view women priests as a possibility aren’t likely to have any problem with the authorship of II Peter.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
This is a question pertaining to history, not a question pertaining to faith. Whereas, whether or not the Bible is inerrant is a question pertaining to faith, which has been asked and answered by the Church. The Bible is inerrant.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Bible is inerrant, but we must be sure to view the texts in the context and literary genre in which they were written. Job is a story about a man forced to endure suffering who asks many questions about the nature of God. To recognize this is not to imply that the Holy Spirit misinformed the writer of Job. We need to look beyond a literal interpretation of Scripture to see what the Spirit intends for us. The Word is alive in the Church, and Fr. Brown’s attempts to explain the texts are an honest attempt to clarify and illuminate Scripture for others.

Fr. Ray Brown is a respected biblical scholar and condemnation of his works by those who are unfamiliar with them is unfair.
 
“Fr. Ray Brown is a respected biblical scholar and condemnation of his works by those who are unfamiliar with them is unfair.”

I believe one of the reasons for this is thaat you needed to read carefully what he is saying. Brown is not for casual reaading.
 
You are right, Brown is not for casual reading. He does set out his premises when writing, but for those who are untrained in scripture scholarship on the level that Brown writes, or who read casually or without much discrimination, his statements can be shocking. People assume, because it is a nice little book, and it is on the shelf at a major bookstore, or a Catholic bookstore, that it is a popular treatment of the subject.

The question was asked as to why dissenters seem to like Brown.

A) Why assume dissenters are totally honest in relating what Brown said (i.e. that they would not be guilty of “cut and paste”)?

B) Why assume that they can read any better than some people who consider themselves orthodox, and can’t read Brown for what he actually says?

The Protestants quote from the Bible, albeit inacurately; should we then not read the Bible? If dissenters quote inacurately from Brown, does that make him heretical?
 
Here’s my question…

If II Peter was not written by Peter as the book says it was, doesn’t that mean the Bible contains an error? Doesn’t that make the author of II Peter a liar? Wouldn’t that disqualify it from being in Holy Writ? :bible1:

This is what bothers me about modern higher criticism. It’s especially surprising to me as a Protestant that though the church has repeatedly affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture (to which I give a hearty Amen!) yet most of the priests in America (or at least those who publish books) deny what Leo XIII, Pius XII, and all of the ancient fathers have set down. They make Daniel, II Peter, the last part of Isaiah, and other books out to be pseudepigraphic forgeries which don’t belong in a collection of “inerrant” books because they teach lies. Am I the only one who feels this way? :confused:

(I know the Bible talks about “sunrise”, but then again so do we! The Bible does speak in terms that we can understand, but in doing so does not affirm something that is totally false.)

I’m familiar with folks who have read these books and articles by higher critics and it has destroyed their faith in the Bible and therefore in Christianity. If I accepted them, I probably would not be a Christian. History and archaeology have given more than ample backup for the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, and we need to speak up more about this.
 
40.png
Esquire:
Be careful citing to Mr. Sungenis. I really enjoyed his works “Not by Faith Alone” and “Not by Scripture Alone”, but his current position against heliocentrisim and in favor of geocentrism is, to say the least, a bit troubing.
Click to expand...
Granted, geocentrism is a bit of an eccentric position, but it has no bearing on one’s catholicity.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I take this (“for the sake of salvation”) to say that the Bible is not a science book or a history text, but an inerrant guide for matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Dei Verbum should not be taken alone, but should be interpreted in the context of other magesterial documents. Innerancy is not limited solely to matters of faith and morals, but extends to history, geography, etc as well.
 
40.png
otm:
He is always careful to deliniate what he is asking and how he is asking it; always respectful of the Magesterium, and always points to the fact that what we believe is backed by Tradition.
Click to expand...
If you read the article to which I linked at the top of this page, you will see how Fr. Brown often twisted the words of the magesterium to suit his ideology, and this when it was actually contradicting him.
 
40.png
dcs:
Since it doesn’t make him an heretic, there’s no reason it should be troubling.
Click to expand...
If I had a friend who tended to make sound statements and explanations of Catholic belief, but one day began insisting that invisible goblins were responsible for his car’s and household appliances’ mechanical failures, I might eventually begin to second-guess him in areas of judgement beyond his personal superstition.

(Now that’s not a fair analogy for lots of reasons, but I’m making it anyway.)

Sungenis geocentrism is troubling, precisely because he suggests that the “earth as center of the universe” should be understood as taught by the Bible and confirmed by the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I don’t think he’s gone so far yet as to claim that it’s heresy not to believe it, but we’ll see . . .

The fact is, that even though no one can (or ever will be able to) “prove” to his satisfaction that the earth isn’t the center of the universe, Sungenis cannot and never will be able to formulate a physical theory that at once posits this “fact” and provides an experimental mechanism for its verification. The closest he can come is to suggest a kind of “framework” or “global mechanism” for understanding how the earth could be the center of the universe. And in such a way that accounts for other “ignorant” observers being able to make sensible calculations for their local systems. But then you are left with the “earth as center” being in ALL practical ways a matter of faith. And none of us should be comfortable with that. That’s like saying, “well sure there is an alternative explanation for the invisible goblins that if you were ignorant of the goblins would be excusable, even sensisble to hold . . . but, BUT you MUST believe that in truth it is really the goblins who are responsible because it is a matter of faith that such goblins exist and are responsible for mechanical failures.”

So yes, Sungenis position on this matter is troubling. But primarily so because he represents a kind of radical and reactionary fundamentalism among many Catholics who are otherwise brilliant defenders of the Church and Her teaching. Ultimately such attitudes color all of the areas of their thinking and undermine their credibility.

It is always easier to swing hard-over “left” and “right” during times of intellectual turmoil in the Church; it is more difficult and meritorious, and requires much more grace to hold and mold the organic orthodoxy that is 2000 years (so far) of sound Catholic thought.
 
40.png
Hananiah:
Granted, geocentrism is a bit of an eccentric position, but it has no bearing on one’s catholicity.
Click to expand...
Hananiah, please see the response I made to dcs regarding this matter earlier today. I’d love to get your feedback.

I think it really can affect one’s catholicity for a number of reasons.
 
I did want to say, as it relates to the parent topic, I have only been disappointed to find that Fr. Brown’s scholarship seems to consistently undermine the Catholic Faith even if he never denies Church teachings outright.

The works of Fr. William Most are, I think, a great alternative and even antidote to those of Fr. Brown:

catholicculture.org/docs/most/browse.cfm

Three important issues over which Fr. Most and Fr. Brown strongly differ: historicity of the Gospels, the consciousness of Christ, and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. See Fr. Most’s collected works online for varioius treatments of all three.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
This is a question pertaining to history, not a question pertaining to faith. Whereas, whether or not the Bible is inerrant is a question pertaining to faith, which has been asked and answered by the Church. The Bible is inerrant.

The part of Dei Verbum that I’d like to emphasize is:
Fr. Brown asserted the author of Job made an error with regard to religious truth. He believed that the author of Job denied an afterlife. In other words, Fr. Brown asserts that the Holy Spirit denied the afterlife, thereby contradicting himself within Holy Writ. Hmmmmmmmm… don’t think so. What Fr. Brown has asserted is against the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. I believe he was too heavily influenced by the Protestant biblical scholarship he learned at the Protestant seminary he attended.

Dei Verbum is not the first magisterial teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. You ought to read the others and understand the Dei Verbum did not set out to change Catholic teaching, but to affirm it.

God bless,

Dave
Click to expand...
The revelation of God to men was a progressive revelation. There is little evidence in the Old Testament that its authors believed in an after-life and what there is suggests they believed, more or less what the pagans as, did, which was that after death men lived in a shadow world. Exceptions would be the “hints” or forecasts of the Gospel which we Christian believe to be in the Scripture, truths of which even the authors might have been unaware. We believe that the New Testament is a kind of “key” to the Scriptures, which opens the door to the full meaning of the Jewish Scriptures.
 
I wonder how many in this thread who wish to condemn Brown have read him, and how many are just relying on what they have read second or third hand?

To criticize Brown adequately would, to my thinking, require a level of scholarship that I suspect most in this thread do not have. Or, again, I might be surprised.
 
The problem with Mr. Sungenis’s “scientific” beliefs is that he claims that geocentrism is an article of faith, a teaching of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium and therefore implicitly labels heliocentrists heretics. And he citesd Scripture and the Fathers to “prove” it.

(Yes, I understand that scientists today are not heliocentrists in the sense Galileo was.)
 
  1. As others have said, Brown writes as a scholar, and hence one needs to be careful in their reading of him to make sure that he is not misunderstood. I don’t agree a number of his positions, but AFAIK, they are generally allowable positions in the Church.
  2. I think dissenters prefer him b/c they misunderstand him as opening the door for their own pet ideas, which (again) I don’t think is typically the case.
  3. Bob Sungenis is out there a bit too far. Besides the issues noted here (geocentrism, etc.), he believes that guys like Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, and Karl Keating are endangering the Faith (see this for an example: catholicintl.com/epologetics/gates_of_hell.asp).
Chris
 
This “thread” is a really good topic and I’m glad there are people out there noodling over the same sort of things that I do.

BOF – “birds of a feather” to coin the phrase.

My entry point into the subject in recent years is that there are local priests who interject some very deep intellectual ideas into otherwise straightforward homilies, lectures, and conversations

For example, “the first 11 chapters of Genesis are fiction.”

For example, “the author(s) of Genesis *never intended * the scroll to be read as history”

In the average congregation of 300 people I’m not sure that even 5 people understand what these statements might mean. And, in my parish, the priest who throws out these gems refuses to allow a Bible study group to be formed.

Another headache that this brings back is Brown’s thesis that the infancy narratives of the Gospels are all false. I’m sure that OTM and Bob-spelled-backwards and you others are aware of that. The same priest who spoons out the “fiction” stuff during the season of Pentecost doesn’t touch the infancy-fiction thesis with a ten foot candlestick at Christmas.

And, anecdotally, this priest wrote an essay in the church bulletin explaining that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are as much fiction as what he learned as a child about Santa Claus. I don’t think even Brown was that graphic, although he was close to that.
 
In the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, which Brown wrote, edited, and gave his nihil obstat stamp of approval, he comments on his own work in the commentary as follows:
  1. He says nobody should take it in a fundamentalist sense.
  2. He predicted that anybody who came along to revise the commentary would probably give a lot of it the heave-ho, like he did in coming up with the current edition.
Therefore, there are no better words than his own to keep in mind when you ponder anything he wrote.

In response to the writer who started this thread: yes, this diocese of Saginaw which was under the helm of the late Bishop Untener is a very liberal bastion and Brown’s ideas are very well-respected (by some) in these parts.
 
One of the great things about being Catholic is that we don’t have to be reactionary. Father Raymond Brown, S.S. was a Near Eastern scholar (his doctorate was in Near Eastern languages and literature from Johns Hopkins Univ.). Whenever Fr. Brown said or wrote anything that might be misconstrued by unsophisticated listeners or readers, he would make it abundantly clear that he defers to the Church on all doctrinal matters.

I and a friend had a chance to talk with Fr. Brown privately. My friend, a staunch Protestant and learned biblicist (whom I’ve seen dismantle many smart people-- including Gerry Matatics when Matatics gave an apologetics lecture at Princeton Univ.), went full-bore into Fr. Brown. I wish our private talk was recorded, because Fr. Brown was perfectly brilliant and would have made any Catholic proud. In a very winsome and scholarly way, Brown intellectually dismantled my friend and defended Roman Catholic Church teaching without compromise. You can be fully orthodox without being a knee-jerk reactionary (ala much of Catholic apologetics).
 
Well…I’m pleasantly surprised at the discussion this has generated!
And both sides are well represented here:

Some of you are concerned that Fr. Brown’s critics are not familiar with his writings.
So let me be a little more clear about why I asked the original question:

I have not read ANY of Fr. Brown’s writings!!
So that is why I have not been attempting to cite any of his words to make an argument one way or the other.

Here is the reason for my question:
The only people I know who DO know Fr. Brown’s works VERY WELL are without an exception - dissenters.
I am talking about priests, DREs - those who went off for their education and specifically studied Fr. Raymond Brown’s works.

So…they cannot be brushed aside as being unfamiliar with his works.

And what do I mean by “dissent”?
Maybe this term does not exactly fit my point - but you all can be the judge:
I am talking about the tendency to treat OT as mere stories/myths/parables meant to prove a moral point - but not to be expected to show any kind of historical truth.
I have heard the Adam/Eve story presented this way- even with a touch of evolution thrown in.

Questioning the true authorship of the books of the bible (who is this “Q” fellow anyway?)
Questioning the validity of the infancy narrative.
Placing NT “miracles” performed by Jesus in the same category as OT “moral stories” - not to be treated as true historical fact - but meant to convey a “spiritual message”
Doubting Mary’s perpetual virginity. One priest seemed to even question the virgin birth itself!

And in case you are wondering how these well educated people fit in other areas of contention in our church:
They often dispute unbroken papal succession,
Offer a “new” interpretation on the teaching concerning contraception.
Downplay the need for sacrament of reconciliation
Support female priests.

You get the picture.
And what I’m wondering is this: is their dissent separate from what they learned about the bible?
Or did their education set them up for dissent?
When so many things about the bible are questioned and scrutinized - and placed in doubt…does that promote the same mentality towards all the Church’s teachings?
 
Good questions, Lorarose.

I think that generally, those places where a borderline or outright heterodox form of Catholicism is taught usually use someone like Brown in their Scripture courses (he might even be the most conservative on the bibliography). They’re never going to be reading and studying the scholarship of more “conservative” people than Brown, and as a result, once they’ve completed their (mis)education, Brown is one of the scripture scholars they’re familiar with, although I’d venture to say that he didn’t have the central place in their scripture formation (probably people like Borg or Crossan).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top