For Saginaw Diocese Catholics, in particular

[BayCityRickL]

I’ll use Fr. Benedict Groeschel as an example, whereas he has pointed out that there is very widespread skepticism about the Bible among priests and bishops in the U.S.

I have found example after example of this in the Saginaw Diocese in the time frame of 2000 to present. I’d like to use this thread to allow others, particularly from Saginaw, to agree or disagree about Bible skepticism in this diocese.

For example, based on the application of “scientific” methods of Bible criticism, some people like the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown say that the first chapters of Genesis are “fiction.” He also claimed that he was convinced that the nativity narratives of the gospels are all fiction. What I’m also saying is that Brown’s influence and legacy is very strong in this diocese.

In contrast, the Catechism of the Catholic Church takes a more moderate position with regard to the Bible, the Fathers, and tradition. So, for example, in paragraph 390 of the 1994 English edition, the CCC says that the text of Genesis is “figurative” but that it is based on primeval and historical events.

There it is, that’s my point, “fiction” versus “historical.” I’ve encountered variations of this, but nothing to convince me that there is magisterial compliance, e.g., to the CCC.

Am I the only one in this diocese that has seen such as this?

 

[savone]

I’m assuming we’re talking about Saginaw, MI? Don’t know why I’m asking the question because I don’t live there and I’m not even Catholic. I am familiar a bit with Raymond E. Brown’s works. I’ve got an idea. Since I vacation frequently in MI, next trip, let’s have a chat over some It’s unfortunate when biblical scholarship undermines instead of edifyies. :tsktsk:

 

[Donald45]

BayCityRickL:

I’ll use Fr. Benedict Groeschel as an example, whereas he has pointed out that there is very widespread skepticism about the Bible among priests and bishops in the U.S.

I have found example after example of this in the Saginaw Diocese in the time frame of 2000 to present. I’d like to use this thread to allow others, particularly from Saginaw, to agree or disagree about Bible skepticism in this diocese.

For example, based on the application of “scientific” methods of Bible criticism, some people like the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown say that the first chapters of Genesis are “fiction.” He also claimed that he was convinced that the nativity narratives of the gospels are all fiction. What I’m also saying is that Brown’s influence and legacy is very strong in this diocese.

In contrast, the Catechism of the Catholic Church takes a more moderate position with regard to the Bible, the Fathers, and tradition. So, for example, in paragraph 390 of the 1994 English edition, the CCC says that the text of Genesis is “figurative” but that it is based on primeval and historical events.

There it is, that’s my point, “fiction” versus “historical.” I’ve encountered variations of this, but nothing to convince me that there is magisterial compliance, e.g., to the CCC.

Am I the only one in this diocese that has seen such as this?

Saginaw is my hometown, though I live elsewhere now. I think the comparison isn’t really between “fiction” and “historical,” rather it’s more between “fiction” and “figurative,” both which amount to essentially the same thing (i.e., “literal truth in non-literal language”). For Fr. Brown, some of these texts are basically theological stories, though they do have some resonance with history as it actually happened (e.g., Jesus was a real person in history, etc.). Genesis 1 and 2, for instance, would be seen as a didactic narrative, a story meant to teach, rather than as a straightforward journalistic account along the lines we’re used to today.

The CCC, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, are both more cautious in conceiving and applying the historical-critical approach to Scripture, though they do not rule it out entirely. Care should be taken not to equate the method itself with certain illegitimate philosophical assumptions held by some who seek to employ the method.

God bless,
Donald

 

[TOME]

I would like to respond to several responses to this thred especially in light of comments made on Fr R. Brown - whose schaloship I do admire, often do not understand and at times disagree (I think his works on the Infancy Narratives fit all three of these). One term he seem to be criticized is his apparently calling passages such as Genesis “Fiction”. I don’t remember him doing this (though he may well have). What I do remember however is the understanding by Fr Brown an others is that these passages contain or are Myths - a term often mistaken as meaning fiction. It does not, Myth has a much deeper meaning as what we commonly consider Fiction to be. As far as the works, teachings etc. of Fr Bill, I am totally ignorant of them so I would be foolish to comment on them.