Imprimatur and bad doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter tizzidale
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought I had placed this in Apologetics. I suppose it got moved. Why?
 
tizzidale said:
So, how could a work like that of Raymond E Brown receive an imprimatur from a Bishop of the Catholic Church? I’m referring to one specific work: The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. From what I’ve read of the man, he seemed to be a controversial figure. Why give an imprimatur to such a man?

rusty
Click to expand...
The description is “an examination” of Church doctrine – if the book doesn’t contradict doctrine there should not be a problem.

Also, Nihil Obsat and Imprimatur are fairly low standards, they basically mean “this book is not heretical” not “this is a good book”. Just picture it as a seal from the health dept. “free from poison and e. coli” – that doesn’t mean it’s nutritious.
 
tizzidale said:
Why give an imprimatur to such a man?
Click to expand...
He was also appointed twice (by 2 different popes) to the Pontifical Biblical Commission - sounds like quite a man, certainly worth a read if you are interested in Catholic scripture scholarship.
 
Haven’t read the book but here are a few thoughts:
  1. People may be better writers than speakers. Or they may write one thing, or one way, and ‘say’ something, or in a different way. A written work has (hopefully) been written, rewritten, carefully studied. . .speaking ‘off the cuff’ is another story.
  2. Some writings, even by people with other writings which are problematic, may be all right as regards to teachings. If you have somebody with a bee in his bonnet over contraception to a problematic point, that person may be absolutely solid on many, many other points of doctrine.
  3. Some writings are so very elastic and nuanced that whether they actually espouse a problematic point may not be readily discernible, even to experts.
 
An imprimatur granted by a bishop does not mean that the bishop agrees with everything in it. It simply means that the book was not found to teach formal heresy. The bishop may not have read the book; he is relying on the nihil obstat given by the diocesan person assigned to that task.

I haven’t read Raymond Brown, but as far as I know, he is considered a good scripture scholar and no heretic. Theological speculation and scripture analysis in itself is not heresy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top