- Status
N
newenglandsun
Guest
I’m confused. What is wrong with the commentary other than the inadequacy?
Raymond Brown notes the infallible interpretation of scriptures rests not with the idea that it tells Catholics what the writer meant when he wrote it but rather as to how to apply it to one’s life (application method). There is no contradiction with a historical-critical method of the OT or NT.
po18guy
Well-known member
Fr. Raymond Brown? There’s the possible source of your confusion. His opinions are controversial. There are far more orthodox sources. Notice that historical-critical methods often deconstruct the faith, i.e. the Jesus Seminar. What is the purpose of this? Such deconstruction tends to reduce scripture from revelation to recitation of ancient tales; Christ from Savior to Paul Bunyan-like legend. I find it corrosive to the faith, and I believe that its source is not heaven, but this world.
Benedict XVI, in his trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, here, here and here, places the entire H-C method in proper perspective.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
I have Introduxtion to Christianity by Pope Benedict XVI. He seems very solid. I have Brown’s book The Birth of the Messiah. Other than questioning the perpetual virginity but highlighting that it can still be defended, I really haven’t noticed anything too controversial. In fact, it actually seems more approachable for Protestants who are having difficulties with the perpetual virginity. He’s not dogmatic in his writings which I think is why it seems a lot of more traditionalist Catholics are uncomfortable with his writings.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
I took you up on this from a post you made in a previous thread. I first picked up the 1963 version and then found a 1950 version with the Douay version of the OT and Confraternity edition of the NT. I think I got both for about 12 bucks. I still would like to get a full Confraternity edition. I use the 1950 for my reading. Anyway…thanks for the suggestion.
po18guy
Well-known member
Benedict XVI, in my mind is the world’s greatest living theologian. He is an amazing resource. IMO, reading his trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth will be far more insightful than reading Fr. Brown’s material. Some things that Fr. Brown writes are perfectly acceptable, but some is cloudy, while some has been clearly challenged. I would avoid him, unless I was a trained theologian and able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Fr. Brown clearly doubts portions of the Catholic faith, i.e. doubts the declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity. What other doubts are mixed into his writings? I believe that he must be influenced by both modern protestant and/or secular modernist thinking here, as no one in authority doubted Mary’s perpetual virginity until the protestant rebellion in the 16th century. To doubt it, Fr. Brown must disregard or heavily discount both the Apostolic Tradition, which is one-third of the deposit of faith, as well as the Magisterium, which has defined her virginity as de fide. This is dissidence. As we will see in the next paragraph, neither doubt nor disobedience have their source in heaven. There is a spirit driving Fr. Brown’s thoughts, and I have no confidence that it is from heaven.
Thus, Fr. Brown seems to lean toward the 15th century heresies of Wyclif and Hus - who dissented from the Church, denied many of the Sacraments and began to teach that only the written record could be trusted for revelation. Combine that with today’s creeping modernist view that even the written record consists of legends and fables, (see the modernist NAB notes on Mary’s Magnificat - Luke 1:46-55) and you have a two-pronged assault on the entire faith. In the late 1980s, the Jesus Seminar was formed. They taught that Jesus was human and that all of His miracles had a natural explanation - He was a great counselor and philosopher, but not divine. This is precisely how the evil one works - these are his exact methods.
Stick with Benedict XVI, or any of the clearly orthodox Catholic teachers and you will know the genuine Catholic faith as it has been handed on to us.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
That’s true that Brown doubts a lot but despite this, he largely maintains upright in his works on the teachings of the magisterium. In fact, with respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary, he favors the Eastern fathers’ arguments for it.
po18guy
Well-known member
:tiphat: I first bought one on Ebay and liked it so much that I have sought out other versions, both older and newer. Sadly, it was never completed in one volume. I believe that the final version of the OT was sold only in supplements, so there is no complete Confraternity translation. But, the Douay OT and the Confraternity NT are a great combination.I took you up on this from a post you made in a previous thread. I first picked up the 1963 version and then found a 1950 version with the Douay version of the OT and Confraternity edition of the NT. I think I got both for about 12 bucks. I still would like to get a full Confraternity edition. I use the 1950 for my reading. Anyway…thanks for the suggestion.
po18guy
Well-known member
I just fear the spirit that lead him to doubt, as it now dwells in his writings.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I have heard the NRSV-CE (New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition) is the best, however the first one I read was a CEV (Contemporary English Version) New Testament and Psalms book, thus why I purchased a CEV translation Bible, I also find it easier to read, because for example -
CEV (Contemporary English Version)
Matthew 5:5
5 God blesses those people
who are humble.
The earth will belong
to them!
NRSV-CE (New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition)
Matthew 5:5
5 “Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
So for someone like me when I first satrted reading the Gospels, I didn’t know what the word “Meek” meant. There are also alot of things like this in the old testament and I personally find it easier to understand the CEV, but to be honest if I had started reading a NRSV-CE version, I would currently be reading that now and not the CEV.
I also checked here on the forums about translations and have found that they are all the basically the same, I think there was like one or two they advised to stay away from but other than that they basically said the best translation is which ever one you will read.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
Elizium23
Guest
The CEV is not a Catholic translation. There might be an edition which contains the deuterocanonical texts, but even so, the extreme dynamic equivalence used in the CEV seems to me to contribute to gross inaccuracy of the transmitted ideas therein, and is therefore a second good reason to avoid this translation.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Would you be able to give me an example please of it’s gross inaccuracy? because I have not found any and I am constantly comparing it to to the verses from other translations.
This is what I found here on CAF -
catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide
Where they explain alot of the different translations and at the end say this -
For example I especially like the CEV because of this translation -
Contemporary English Version (CEV):
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV-CE):
Now for me, first reading this, I much prefer the CEV translation, as it actually reduces the chances of a gross miss interpretation with this passage here, as the word “hate” back then wasn’t like we use it today, instead if you liked A more than B, back than, they would have said “I hate B” which isn’t that they really “hate” B as in the way we use that word today, but simply that they prefer A.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
johnnyc176
Guest
N
newenglandsun
Guest
Like I said, I think your problem is that he doesn’t focus too hard on Biblical literalism. And also, I think his doubts are more on line with the overall importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary with respect to ecumenism.
I was a Protestant by the way who was led to doubt by modern textual criticism. But am now heavily leaned toward the Greek Catholic Church.
And besides, the heathen scholar Elaine Pagels notes in one of her books how the Eastern Orthodox Saint Dionysius challenged the Biblical criticism in his day as well and wasn’t breaking from the tradition.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, demonic possession is a form of mental illness.
po18guy
Well-known member
My problem with him, and I had to research him to know anything about him, is that he is doubting and/or disobedient. For the apparent sake of getting along with others (false ecumenism), he expresses doubt about one of the dogmas of the Church. Every Catholic on earth is called to grant intellectual assent to the core doctrines of the Church. Each and every Catholic doctrine had to be argued and debated and prayed over before it was settled. See Acts 15. How is convincing non-Catholics going to require any less effort? How is that effort helped by suppressing or soft-peddling, rather than elucidating core doctrines?
As Saint Augustine of Hippo said: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not try to understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand”
We get into trouble when we demand to understand before we will believe. There are better teachers of orthodox Catholicism. If you stick with him, I ask only that you make frequent reference to the catechism to compare.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
He’s doubting that the Bible says that. But last time I checked, Catholics believed in tradition AND scripture both.
E
Elizium23
Guest
It looks like the CEV is available at biblegateway.com, so I will be going over a few passages to see how accurate they are. Right now I am looking at Luke 1:34 where the doctrine of Virgin Birth is established; well, in the CEV Mary says “How can this be? I am not married!”. Uh, lots of unmarried women have babies, that is not miraculous.
The CEV may be fine for private, recreational reading. If you just want to entertain yourself with pithy Bible verses that are easy to understand, and the actual language of authorized translations is beyond your comprehension, then perhaps the CEV is OK. But I don’t see it usable for profitable spiritual reading. Neither is it usable in the liturgy in any form. Let’s not forget it’s not Catholic at all. At least the version on biblegateway.com lacks the Deuterocanonicals, so it is woefully incomplete. This would never be acceptable as a study tool in an organized Catholic Bible study. In the Great Adventure courses I take, they specify a Catholic Bible is needed, and the leaders use the RSV-CE as the sole source of instruction. So anyone using a Bible that has such wildly inaccurate translations is going to be easily lost and left behind when it comes to adequate understanding necessary to complete the study units.
The CEV may be one weapon in a large arsenal of Sacred Scripture, as an example of something that is easily understandable to children and those with low English comprehension. In a library of several good translations it may have a place. But as a Catholic, I would not use it as an everyday resource or for spiritual devotion or study of any kind.
The CEV may be fine for private, recreational reading. If you just want to entertain yourself with pithy Bible verses that are easy to understand, and the actual language of authorized translations is beyond your comprehension, then perhaps the CEV is OK. But I don’t see it usable for profitable spiritual reading. Neither is it usable in the liturgy in any form. Let’s not forget it’s not Catholic at all. At least the version on biblegateway.com lacks the Deuterocanonicals, so it is woefully incomplete. This would never be acceptable as a study tool in an organized Catholic Bible study. In the Great Adventure courses I take, they specify a Catholic Bible is needed, and the leaders use the RSV-CE as the sole source of instruction. So anyone using a Bible that has such wildly inaccurate translations is going to be easily lost and left behind when it comes to adequate understanding necessary to complete the study units.
The CEV may be one weapon in a large arsenal of Sacred Scripture, as an example of something that is easily understandable to children and those with low English comprehension. In a library of several good translations it may have a place. But as a Catholic, I would not use it as an everyday resource or for spiritual devotion or study of any kind.
po18guy
Well-known member
Doubting the bible says what? You lost me.
Catholics (as well as the Eastern and oriental Orthodox) have the Apostolic Tradition, the scriptures, as well as the teaching authority of the Magisterium.
- Status