C
catholictiger
Guest
if you know how to approach it than it has no negative impact on your faith
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
Fr Raymond Brown’s numerous misrepresentations need to be well-known so that those errors can be avoided, his denigration of faithful Catholics exposed, and a better understanding of the Sacred Scriptures as taught by the Church become the norm.
Raymond E Brown’s theorizing follows the prevarication which has been exhibited here. On being challenged to square his theories with Catholic teaching, these are typical responses:
When he was asked at lecture about statements from Fr John Hardon’s The Catholic Catechism, Fr Brown’s reply was: “That book is a disaster; his is pre-1910 theology.” The questioner persisted: “But Father, Cardinal Wright has written a preface for the book”. His answer was: “His is a pre-1910 theology, too.” (National Catholic Register, Nov 30, 1975, p4; Kelly p 141).
When asked in a letter about his assertion that when Matthew wrote the “Thou art Peter” passage it was really an interpolation of a redactor and not a real saying of Jesus, as against Pius XII’s proclamation of the validity of all four Gospels, Brown’s answer was that Pius XII had lived long before Vatican II. But, get this, Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu is used frequently by Brown to justify his own “freedom” in exegesis! (Julia Grimes of Pennsylvania, July 6, 1980, p 4, National Catholic Register).[Kelly, p141].
These exposures are regarded as evidence of “fundamentalism” and “vigilantism” in “scholarly” circles of the type we have seen here.
“Fr Brown never fully nor objectively reports the content or portent of Roman documents.
A good case in point is his frequent use of the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission *The Historical Truth of the Gospels *to ‘prove’ that Rome endorses modern exegesis without qualification.” [Kelly p134].
In counseling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies the Commission states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.” Brown omits this and much else from his summary of the Instruction in his *Crises Facing the Church *(1975). [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
Raymond E Brown’s theorizing follows the prevarication which has been exhibited here. On being challenged to square his theories with Catholic teaching, these are typical responses:
When he was asked at lecture about statements from Fr John Hardon’s The Catholic Catechism, Fr Brown’s reply was: “That book is a disaster; his is pre-1910 theology.” The questioner persisted: “But Father, Cardinal Wright has written a preface for the book”. His answer was: “His is a pre-1910 theology, too.” (National Catholic Register, Nov 30, 1975, p4; Kelly p 141).
When asked in a letter about his assertion that when Matthew wrote the “Thou art Peter” passage it was really an interpolation of a redactor and not a real saying of Jesus, as against Pius XII’s proclamation of the validity of all four Gospels, Brown’s answer was that Pius XII had lived long before Vatican II. But, get this, Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu is used frequently by Brown to justify his own “freedom” in exegesis! (Julia Grimes of Pennsylvania, July 6, 1980, p 4, National Catholic Register).[Kelly, p141].
These exposures are regarded as evidence of “fundamentalism” and “vigilantism” in “scholarly” circles of the type we have seen here.
“Fr Brown never fully nor objectively reports the content or portent of Roman documents.
A good case in point is his frequent use of the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission *The Historical Truth of the Gospels *to ‘prove’ that Rome endorses modern exegesis without qualification.” [Kelly p134].
In counseling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies the Commission states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.” Brown omits this and much else from his summary of the Instruction in his *Crises Facing the Church *(1975). [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
C
Contarini
Guest
You have no right to read other people’s minds and pronounce on what they supposedly “really mean.”
It is “verbal engineering” in much the same way as the modern interpretation of “outside the Church no salvation.” When you bind yourself to a fixed standard, you wind up with tension and ambiguity which must be dealt with through careful interpretation. To unsympathetic people, this always seems like dishonest “verbal engineering.”
OK, this is a separate issue from forgery. And I’m not quite sure what you mean–are you talking about Adam?
There are two questions that arise if we think that historically traditional ascriptions made by Jesus or the Apostles are inaccurate:
- Did Jesus and/or the Apostles (obviously it’s more of a problem when Jesus did it because we’re dealing with Christology as well as doctrine of Scripture, though of course it resolves into doctrine of Scripture because the account of what Jesus said might itself be due to the Biblical author) intend these ascriptions to be taken historically rather than conventionally? and
- Is it OK to say that Jesus and/or the Apostles made historical mistakes?
It says that we shouldn’t look to Scripture for precise, “objective” historical information. But that’s clear whether there are historical errors in Scripture or not. For instance, archaeologically we know that the Northern Kingdom under Omri and Ahab was an extremely successful, prosperous society. The OT implies this by referring to Ahab’s ivory tower, wars, etc., but focuses on the ways in which Ahab’s reign was disastrous. One has to look at the point being made rather than treating the Bible as a work of history in the modern sense.
I don’t see why not. But it all depends on the specific instance and the relationship between the doctrine and the OT figure.
I do not believe that David is an imaginary figure. I think there’s room for debate about how much the accounts of David are historical accounts written shortly after his time, and how much they are more like Arthurian stories–legends told centuries later about a figure who probably did exist. I would strongly incline toward the former view, but I’m not going to say that people who believe the latter therefore have no reason to be Christians at all. That’s the point where I’m taking issue with you.
C
Contarini
Guest
From my perspective, the bottom line is the resurrection of Jesus. If that didn’t happen, then indeed Christianity is more of a philosophy, and as such it’s kind of a poor man’s Buddhism. That doesn’t mean that I think all the rest is sheer mythology, but I think one could give up most of the rest of Scripture as historical without reducing Christianity “only a practical philosophy and act of discipline to live by.”
I think that the logic “we must believe Scripture as a whole to be historical or else there is no reason to believe the resurrection to be historical” does not make any sense. The historicity of the Resurrection stands on its own. But of course if one has a general hermeneutic of radical skepticism, one is likely to conclude that the Resurrection isn’t historical either. I do not adopt or defend such a hermeneutic. But what looks like radical skepticism to many Christians looks simply like reasonable accommodation of the historical evidence to others. In other words, a person who believes that there is good historical evidence for the Resurrection but not much good historical evidence for David or the Exodus or for that matter the virginal conception of Jesus has an entirely coherent position and is not logically required to give up the Resurrection as well.
That is not to say that such a person would be orthodox. The Church clearly requires belief in the virginal conception and generally in the historicity of the Gospels, and in the honesty and (in proper cultural context and with literary genre in mind) accuracy of the Biblical narratives as a whole.
However, since the NAB notes have not been condemned by the Church, one can reasonably surmise that they do not blatantly violate these norms, and hence that there is a lot more room within the Catholic doctrine of Scripture than many folks on this forum suppose.
I think you’re painting with an extremely broad brush. I’m not defending all of historical criticism. Many commonly accepted critical judgments do strike me as troubling theologically and as ill-founded from a scholarly point of view–or just one of these things but not the other, depending on the specific judgment we’re talking about.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
You continue to engage in quote-mining instead of presenting a coherent argument.
There is nothing inconsistent in Fr. Brown citing Divino Afflante Spiritu while saying that Pius XII’s opinions on theology and scholarship had imitations.
If Fr. Brown didn’t obey the Magisterium, then where, specifically did he disobey it? And what did the Magisterium do about it? How do you explain the fact that two different Popes (Paul VI and JPII) appointed him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission? Did either of these Popes, or any other Pope or official organ of the Magisterium, ever condemn or censure him?
The only example I’m aware of is Cardinal Shehan’s criticism of Fr. Brown’s conclusions on apostolic succession and ordination. That is to say, one important prelate of the Church, in a public lecture, expressed strong disagreement with Fr. Brown. As far as I know, Cardinal Shehan took no more official action than this, and of course one cardinal does not speak for the Church all by himself. (I’m not saying that Cardinal Shehan didn’t have valid concerns, by the way, or that all of Fr. Brown’s ideas are correct by any means.)
Edwin
A
Abu
Guest
The critiques of Fr Raymond Brown’s constructions are extensive and accurate as Fr Brian Harrison wrote also:
“On the basis of his distortion and/or mistranslation and selective quotation of such Magisterial texts as Pius Xll’s 1943 encyclical *Divino Afflante Spiritu and Vatican lI’s Constitution on Divine Revelation (especially articles 11 and 19), Fr Brown falsely claimed papal and conciliar backing for his opinions that the Bible contains errors in matters of history and science, and that some parts of the Gospels belong to a literary genre other than true history. Both these opinions contradict infallible teachings of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium confirmed by Vatican II. (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note accompanying the Pope’s Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem *included ‘the absence of error’ in Scripture as a teaching belonging to the first category of Catholic doctrines, namely, those proposed as divinely revealed truth, obstinate dissent from which is, strictly speaking, heresy.)”
A reference to Brown’s work (*The Wanderer *, Sept 10, 1998, by Henry V King) concluded:
“Such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. René Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy.
“His pioneering role was ‘in a new Catholic theology founded on modern exegesis’ that cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. These articles of faith, proclaimed by Popes and believed by the faithful over the centuries, include Jesus’ physical Resurrection; the Transfiguration; the fact that Jesus founded the one, true Catholic Church and instituted the priesthood and the episcopacy; the fact that 12 Apostles were missionaries and bishops; and the truth that Jesus was not ‘ignorant’ on a number of matters.”
He also points out: "Not least, though, was Fr. Brown’s exegesis concerning the infancy narratives of Saints Matthew and Luke that calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the accounts of our Lord’s birth and childhood…St. John’s University professor emeritus Msgr. Kelly in his* The Church’s Problem With Biblical Scholars *declares that when Fr. Brown questions the doctrine of the virginal conception, ‘and says what he earlier called infallible, is really fallible, after all,’ Brown leaves his audience, if not himself, ‘in a squirrel cage running round and round in a circle always returning to the same place, doubt.’ ”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525
“On the basis of his distortion and/or mistranslation and selective quotation of such Magisterial texts as Pius Xll’s 1943 encyclical *Divino Afflante Spiritu and Vatican lI’s Constitution on Divine Revelation (especially articles 11 and 19), Fr Brown falsely claimed papal and conciliar backing for his opinions that the Bible contains errors in matters of history and science, and that some parts of the Gospels belong to a literary genre other than true history. Both these opinions contradict infallible teachings of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium confirmed by Vatican II. (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note accompanying the Pope’s Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem *included ‘the absence of error’ in Scripture as a teaching belonging to the first category of Catholic doctrines, namely, those proposed as divinely revealed truth, obstinate dissent from which is, strictly speaking, heresy.)”
A reference to Brown’s work (*The Wanderer *, Sept 10, 1998, by Henry V King) concluded:
“Such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. René Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy.
“His pioneering role was ‘in a new Catholic theology founded on modern exegesis’ that cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. These articles of faith, proclaimed by Popes and believed by the faithful over the centuries, include Jesus’ physical Resurrection; the Transfiguration; the fact that Jesus founded the one, true Catholic Church and instituted the priesthood and the episcopacy; the fact that 12 Apostles were missionaries and bishops; and the truth that Jesus was not ‘ignorant’ on a number of matters.”
He also points out: "Not least, though, was Fr. Brown’s exegesis concerning the infancy narratives of Saints Matthew and Luke that calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the accounts of our Lord’s birth and childhood…St. John’s University professor emeritus Msgr. Kelly in his* The Church’s Problem With Biblical Scholars *declares that when Fr. Brown questions the doctrine of the virginal conception, ‘and says what he earlier called infallible, is really fallible, after all,’ Brown leaves his audience, if not himself, ‘in a squirrel cage running round and round in a circle always returning to the same place, doubt.’ ”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525
C
Contarini
Guest
My criticisms of your methods remain. It is very hard to have a dialogue with a person whose posts consist almost solely of quotations of quotations of quotations.
Cite the specific passage where Fr. Brown “calls into question the virginal conception,” or stop slandering a priest and scholar of the Catholic Church.
Stop hiding behind “authorities” whom you happen to like but who have no more magisterial authority than Fr. Brown himself.
Edwin
J
juliamajor
Guest
Oh Hell.Quoting the “wanderer” as a source sets my Spidey senses atingling. They are part of the so called “Remnant”.Anyone who doesn’t believe like them is no true Christian. Met some of the ilk in person.Not pleasant, not happy people.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The interesting thing about this Fr Brown. Never heard of him before this, but I Googled his name. (Making me totally qualified to voice an opinion.
)Seems there are at least ten (it could be a hundred) quotes about him for each paper that he has actually written. Interestingly, his writing seems to suffer from the same problem referred to by the poster above. I found it difficult to find what he actually believed. Everything was quoted and referenced, but where is he at?
I briefly (minutes-but I read quickly) went through what I could get online from his Virgin Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. I found what I read to be rather slimy, like the subtlest of creatures (this is terrible to say and will offend others - as does his writing, again interestingly).
My primary impression is that his writings call forth doubt and discord.
I prefer confessions to the beauty, truth and goodness that we find in God here and now and in history.
Like all academics I suppose, he dwells in this esoteric region of ideas, stories and illusions, where without some sort of compass or grounding, things can eaily be turned upside down.
And, that’s what seems to happen.
I may be a crank, but no troll, and trying to speak to the Truth.
C
Contarini
Guest
It isn’t the same problem as Abu’s at all. Abu makes it very clear where he stands, but he doesn’t provide an actual argument–he just cites a lot of cherry-picked quotes.The interesting thing about this Fr Brown. Never heard of him before this, but I Googled his name. (Making me totally qualified to voice an opinion.
Seems there are at least ten (it could be a hundred) quotes about him for each paper that he has actually written. Interestingly, his writing seems to suffer from the same problem referred to by the poster above. I found it difficult to find what he actually believed. Everything was quoted and referenced, but where is he at?
I briefly (minutes-but I read quickly) went through what I could get online from his Virgin Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. I found what I read to be rather slimy, like the subtlest of creatures (this is terrible to say and will offend others - as does his writing, again interestingly).
My primary impression is that his writings call forth doubt and discord.
I prefer confessions to the beauty, truth and goodness that we find in God here and now and in history.
Like all academics I suppose, he dwells in this esoteric region of ideas, stories and illusions, where without some sort of compass or grounding, things can eaily be turned upside down.
And, that’s what seems to happen.
I may be a crank, but no troll, and trying to speak to the Truth.
Fr. Brown, like other serious Biblical scholars, presents careful analysis and is slow to make clear-cut pronouncements. That may seem “slimy” to people who aren’t well acquainted with scholarly methodology, but I’m afraid (to be equally blunt in response to your post) that I think that’s a problem for folks who react that way. In other words, you find care and nuance “slimy,” and that’s unfortunate.
Fr. Brown was trying to be faithful both to Church teaching and to the evidence as he saw it. Nothing slimy about that, at all.
Edwin
A
Abu
Guest
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12-10-2001 (EWTN)
“I share some serious concerns with the late great Fr. William Most with regards to certain principles and conclusions of Fr. Brown. Among those concerns I note:
“I do not recommend the writings of Raymond Brown to the faithful, but only to solid scholars who can sift through what is acceptable and what is suspect. Hann, on the other hand, is altogether trustworthy.”
tinyurl.com/owzqjn4
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 09-15-2012 (EWTN):
“Don’t take the late Fr. Raymond Brown for your teacher of the faith. Take the Catechism of the Catholic Church for that.”
tinyurl.com/npkybke
Glad to portray reality, abucs. Those who cannot see the errors of Fr Brown, so clearly enunciated by so many eminent scholars, seem incapable of seeing the wood for the trees, and thus unable to appreciate the reality of real scholarship.
“I share some serious concerns with the late great Fr. William Most with regards to certain principles and conclusions of Fr. Brown. Among those concerns I note:
- Fr. Brown was convinced of the ignorance of Christ with regard to at least some knowledge related to His identity and ministry.
- Fr. Brown actually argued that Jesus was wrong about certain matters, including His knowledge of the Old Testament
- Fr. Brown did not accept the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, including the Gospels
- Fr. Brown may have been confused with regards to the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition
- Fr. Brown appears to have had trouble accepting some dogmas of the Church in light of the texts of the Bible”
“I do not recommend the writings of Raymond Brown to the faithful, but only to solid scholars who can sift through what is acceptable and what is suspect. Hann, on the other hand, is altogether trustworthy.”
tinyurl.com/owzqjn4
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 09-15-2012 (EWTN):
“Don’t take the late Fr. Raymond Brown for your teacher of the faith. Take the Catechism of the Catholic Church for that.”
tinyurl.com/npkybke
Glad to portray reality, abucs. Those who cannot see the errors of Fr Brown, so clearly enunciated by so many eminent scholars, seem incapable of seeing the wood for the trees, and thus unable to appreciate the reality of real scholarship.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Again these are someone’s opinions.They have no authority. You are free not to read anything you do not want to… But I have the freedom to read them because there is no authoritative opinion that says I must not.If I am to be guided I will use the guidance of the Magisterium and not popular opinion. Cherry picking critics is not the way to prove or disprove anything. There are far more scholars who appreciate and honor the late Raymond Brown’s work I Have read them- have you?
J
juliamajor
Guest
Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, who has written presenting the infancy narratives and John’s Gospel as historically reliable,[20] was personally complimentary of Brown and his scholarship, and has been quoted as saying he “would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown”.[21]
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
This is one of the most sensible posts I’ve ever read on CAF.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That’s because Ratzinger is a classy guy.
I have problems with some of the things Brown says. Actually, it’s not so much with what he says but with some of the implications of what he says. But he was never censured or anything like that. So it’s hard for me to call him a flaming heretic.
A
Abu
Guest
Evidence of the confusion sown by Brown quickly appeared, for it is irresponsible and false to try to limit the Church’s teaching to: “the Latin Vulgate Bible contains no ‘doctrinal* error’ .” Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *(On Revelation) #11, by footnote, invokes the teaching, against this, in the Encyclicals *Providentissimus Deus *(Leo XIII)[1893], and *Divino Afflante Spiritu *(Pius XII, 1943). Pius XII teaches…“when certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine [in Vatican I], in which authority of this kind is claimed which enjoys immunity from any error whatsoever, for these books ‘whole and entire, with all their parts’ when these authors had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals…our Predecessor of Immortal memory, Leo XIII, in an encyclical…rightly and properly refuted those errors…” [See *Free From All Error, p 34, Fr William Most].
This is what yet another renowned scholar, Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, writes of Raymond Brown:
“In his fervent effort to sell this method (HC) to the rest of the Church, Brown sees himself as being at the ideological centre of the opinion spectrum. If we were not acquainted with biblical literature, we might conclude in reading him that there are two main camps, the archconservative and Brown’s centre. He does admit that there are extremists on the left, but they do not seem to bother him nearly as much as those on the right. In his recent book, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Brown fails to deal with the large number of biblical scholars who really are in the centre, who practice historical criticism, but who honestly and openly point out and expose its excesses and aberrations and faulty assumptions.” Faith & Certitude, Ignatius, 1985, p 160].
In fact, Brown has treated these scholars with disdain, and even contempt. As Msgr Eugene Kevane has written of Brown: “…there is something pre Vatican II in this kind of ‘clericalism’ which seeks to silence the People of God by this kind of name calling.” And those who haven’t had the good fortune to have read sound exegetes fall prey to his doubt and confused contradictions, and even decry exposure of his errors.
The gravity of the doubts sown by Raymond Brown in fantasizing with the historical-critical method
Excerpts:
“Fr. Brown could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.
“Cardinal Cooke mailed a copy of Raymond E. Brown’s *Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections *to every New York priest free of charge. My copy of the book lay unread on a table for many months, until a troubled journalist visited me to say that *Priest and Bishop *had shaken his convictions about the truth of Catholicity. Halfway through the book, I understood the journalist’s concern.
“A dozen years or so went by before Cardinal Ratzinger chastised those historical critics who read Scripture “outside” the Church. But nuanced or not, those early re-readings disturbed more than a well-educated Catholic journalist.
“Priest and Bishop was troubling for another reason. Many bishops besides Cardinal Cooke were giving free copies of the book to their priests. Who was underwriting this largesse of Paulist Press? When an advance copy of the book reached one prominent archbishop (the carload arrived later), he turned it over to his staff for analysis. The subsequent line-by-line critique of Priest and Bishop was sent to Baltimore’s Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Brown’s bishop. In due course, it was Cardinal Shehan who challenged the Sulpician’s biblical readings both on the episcopacy and the priesthood.”
He publicly questioned the competency of bishops to deal with biblical questions. His favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labeling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory, Msgr George A Kelly]
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154
This is what yet another renowned scholar, Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, writes of Raymond Brown:
“In his fervent effort to sell this method (HC) to the rest of the Church, Brown sees himself as being at the ideological centre of the opinion spectrum. If we were not acquainted with biblical literature, we might conclude in reading him that there are two main camps, the archconservative and Brown’s centre. He does admit that there are extremists on the left, but they do not seem to bother him nearly as much as those on the right. In his recent book, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Brown fails to deal with the large number of biblical scholars who really are in the centre, who practice historical criticism, but who honestly and openly point out and expose its excesses and aberrations and faulty assumptions.” Faith & Certitude, Ignatius, 1985, p 160].
In fact, Brown has treated these scholars with disdain, and even contempt. As Msgr Eugene Kevane has written of Brown: “…there is something pre Vatican II in this kind of ‘clericalism’ which seeks to silence the People of God by this kind of name calling.” And those who haven’t had the good fortune to have read sound exegetes fall prey to his doubt and confused contradictions, and even decry exposure of his errors.
The gravity of the doubts sown by Raymond Brown in fantasizing with the historical-critical method
Excerpts:
“Fr. Brown could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.
“Cardinal Cooke mailed a copy of Raymond E. Brown’s *Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections *to every New York priest free of charge. My copy of the book lay unread on a table for many months, until a troubled journalist visited me to say that *Priest and Bishop *had shaken his convictions about the truth of Catholicity. Halfway through the book, I understood the journalist’s concern.
“A dozen years or so went by before Cardinal Ratzinger chastised those historical critics who read Scripture “outside” the Church. But nuanced or not, those early re-readings disturbed more than a well-educated Catholic journalist.
“Priest and Bishop was troubling for another reason. Many bishops besides Cardinal Cooke were giving free copies of the book to their priests. Who was underwriting this largesse of Paulist Press? When an advance copy of the book reached one prominent archbishop (the carload arrived later), he turned it over to his staff for analysis. The subsequent line-by-line critique of Priest and Bishop was sent to Baltimore’s Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Brown’s bishop. In due course, it was Cardinal Shehan who challenged the Sulpician’s biblical readings both on the episcopacy and the priesthood.”
He publicly questioned the competency of bishops to deal with biblical questions. His favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labeling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory, Msgr George A Kelly]
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
, p 34, Fr William Most].
This is what yet another renowned scholar, Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, writes of Raymond Brown:
“In his fervent effort to sell this method (HC) to the rest of the Church, Brown sees himself as being at the ideological centre of the opinion spectrum. If we were not acquainted with biblical literature, we might conclude in reading him that there are two main camps, the archconservative and Brown’s centre. He does admit that there are extremists on the left, but they do not seem to bother him nearly as much as those on the right. In his recent book, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Brown fails to deal with the large number of biblical scholars who really are in the centre, who practice historical criticism, but who honestly and openly point out and expose its excesses and aberrations and faulty assumptions.” Faith & Certitude, Ignatius, 1985, p 160].
In fact, Brown has treated these scholars with disdain, and even contempt. As Msgr Eugene Kevane has written of Brown: “…there is something pre Vatican II in this kind of ‘clericalism’ which seeks to silence the People of God by this kind of name calling.” And those who haven’t had the good fortune to have read sound exegetes fall prey to his doubt and confused contradictions, and even decry exposure of his errors.
The gravity of the doubts sown by Raymond Brown in fantasizing with the historical-critical method
Excerpts:
“Fr. Brown could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.
“Cardinal Cooke mailed a copy of Raymond E. Brown’s *Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections *to every New York priest free of charge. My copy of the book lay unread on a table for many months, until a troubled journalist visited me to say that *Priest and Bishop *had shaken his convictions about the truth of Catholicity. Halfway through the book, I understood the journalist’s concern.
“A dozen years or so went by before Cardinal Ratzinger chastised those historical critics who read Scripture “outside” the Church. But nuanced or not, those early re-readings disturbed more than a well-educated Catholic journalist.
“Priest and Bishop was troubling for another reason. Many bishops besides Cardinal Cooke were giving free copies of the book to their priests. Who was underwriting this largesse of Paulist Press? When an advance copy of the book reached one prominent archbishop (the carload arrived later), he turned it over to his staff for analysis. The subsequent line-by-line critique of Priest and Bishop was sent to Baltimore’s Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Brown’s bishop. In due course, it was Cardinal Shehan who challenged the Sulpician’s biblical readings both on the episcopacy and the priesthood.”
He publicly questioned the competency of bishops to deal with biblical questions. His favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labeling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory, Msgr George A Kelly]
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154
A question, Abu:
What is the duty of a scholar? Is it to follow the evidence wherever it leads, with prayerful humility and diligence? Or is it to accept the Church’s position and try to defend it using whatever evidence is at hand?
I know nothing of Mr. Brown, but I am curious about his critics’s hostility toward academic study.
C
Contarini
Guest
Abu, why do you never make an argument in your own words?
You’ve established that quite a lot of priests, and one bishop (Brown’s own bishop), had problems with this theories. You’ve also established that Fr. Brown was often quite rude and dismissive toward more conservative figures.
You have not shown that there was any kind of official censure, and you have not provided a simple list of his errors with the official sources for the Church teaching he is contradicting.
A denial that one can prove a doctrine historically is not a denial of the doctrine.
You have accused Fr. Brown of “prevarication.” I find prevarication all over these forums when it comes to Biblical scholarship, in the form of the intellectually dishonest “spiral argument” which people trot out regularly. This argument claims that the historicity of the NT, down to the authenticity of Jesus’ words to Peter recorded in Matt. 16, can be proven by purely historical means. Fr. Brown’s scholarship and that of other honest historians reveals how bogus this argument is.
That doesn’t mean that there are no flaws in Fr. Brown’s scholarship. But people react badly to him because he reveals that the “spiral argument” emperor has no clothes–that in fact one cannot simply prove the historicity of the NT without relying on faith.
Edwin
You’ve established that quite a lot of priests, and one bishop (Brown’s own bishop), had problems with this theories. You’ve also established that Fr. Brown was often quite rude and dismissive toward more conservative figures.
You have not shown that there was any kind of official censure, and you have not provided a simple list of his errors with the official sources for the Church teaching he is contradicting.
A denial that one can prove a doctrine historically is not a denial of the doctrine.
You have accused Fr. Brown of “prevarication.” I find prevarication all over these forums when it comes to Biblical scholarship, in the form of the intellectually dishonest “spiral argument” which people trot out regularly. This argument claims that the historicity of the NT, down to the authenticity of Jesus’ words to Peter recorded in Matt. 16, can be proven by purely historical means. Fr. Brown’s scholarship and that of other honest historians reveals how bogus this argument is.
That doesn’t mean that there are no flaws in Fr. Brown’s scholarship. But people react badly to him because he reveals that the “spiral argument” emperor has no clothes–that in fact one cannot simply prove the historicity of the NT without relying on faith.
Edwin
A
Abu
Guest
That problem would seem to be endemic to some, for the lack of knowledge evinced encompasses not only knowing nothing about Fr Brown (he was a priest), but also not knowing anything about the many outstanding academics and scholars who have written on the Bible; not knowing what the Church actually teaches on the Bible, and the fact that none of these scholars who critique Fr Brown’s fantasies are “hostile to academic study” – in fact they are the ones rooted in the reality of fact over fiction as any serious examination of their critiques will reveal.
Once again we have Contarini pontificating that “I find prevarication all over these forums when it comes to Biblical scholarship, in the form of the intellectually dishonest ‘spiral argument’ which people trot out regularly”, which merely signifies his incapacity to understand the futility of his supposition, as clearly explained by Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, p 125-127, presented in post # 218 in the thread: question for “liberal Catholics” who disagree with certain church teachings in Apologetics/Moral Theology.
“What we really have is a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”
So it emphatically is not circular. “We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument.” [p 126].
“As Sir Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
‘The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.’ ”[p 126].
- Status