Liberal and Watered Down Catholic Theology

[TMC]

Scott Hahn probably knows more about it than you or i do!

Did you bother to read the interview?

Ditto to TMC.

Perhaps he does, but he is hardly the last word. Do you entirely discredit the many Catholic theologians and biblical scholars that favor Markan priority? I would refer you to, for example, Fr. Ray Brown. Brown was appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission by two Popes, and was one of the most highly regarded Catholic biblical scholars of our time. Brown viewed Markan priority as the most viable theory, and strongly rejected any suggestion that the theory is in any way contrary to Catholic teaching or in any way anti-Catholic. I don’t think that either Paul VI or John Paul II would have put a conspiracy-spreading anti-Catholic on their Biblical Commissions, so the theory must at least be acceptable under Catholic teaching.

 

[sambos671]

The problem is that this sort of liberalism, taught as fact, is VERY damaging. Particularly when it is presented under the guise of Catholic teaching. It is subversive in that people not strong or knowledgeable in the faith are dismayed and misled.

What tends to happen is what can be seen in the NAB and NJB notes, where the hstoricity of the biblical accounts is constanly undermined, by presenting speculation (the books were forged later by editors) as fact. In addition traditional Catholic interpretations of the books are ignored, and in their place is subversively substituted liberal-protestant interpretations.

Both are extremely undermining of Catholic faith. (And Markan priority ISN’T traditional catholic teaching by any means.) The theory behind Markan priority is that the other gospels were embroidered copies of Mark, written by people other than the Apostles, many decades, if not centuries, later. But if we cannot rely on the truth of the Gospel record, or the integrity of the writers, then EVERYTHING can be challenged. Was mary really a Virgin? did Jesus perform any real miracles? Was what He said real, or something made up much later by mendacious falsifiers?

So iss the whole faith successfully undermined.

I’m pretty sure Markian Priority doesn’t necissarily mean that the other gospels were copies of Mark or that they were writen decades to centuries later. It means that Mark was writen first and the synoptic gospels writers, having a copy of it used it like an out line to fashion their own accounts of what occured. Like I said Q is just a theory that there was a writen document that had a list of "the sayings of Jesus " that people referred to whether or not these are true doesn’t affect our faith one way or another. I agree theory shouldn’t be presented as fact. However, I believe we should know what our critics believed. Certainly Ireneaus did and was able to challenge them.

 

[sambos671]

I have a question, do Fundamentalists who “take the Bible literally” literally cut off their hands when they sin? “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off”.

Some how they miss that literal interpretation.

 

[SunnaB16]

Perhaps he does, but he is hardly the last word. Do you entirely discredit the many Catholic theologians and biblical scholars that favor Markan priority? I would refer you to, for example, Fr. Ray Brown…

…so the theory must at least be acceptable under Catholic teaching.

Couldnt you at least have found someone orthodox to give as an example? The late Fr. Raymond Brown doesnt stike me as having been the model of Catholic orthodoxy. He was notorious for years.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=525&CFID=55802344&CFTOKEN=22489610

forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=57545

So much for the tone of the very first post on this thread.

 

[TMC]

Couldnt you at least have found someone orthodox to give as an example? The late Fr. Raymond Brown doesnt stike me as having been the model of Catholic orthodoxy. He was notorious for years.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=525&CFID=55802344&CFTOKEN=22489610

forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=57545

So much for the tone of the very first post on this thread.

As I noted, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II both found Fr. Brown to be orthodox. I’ll go with their opinion of his work.

 

[SunnaB16]

As I noted, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II both found Fr. Brown to be orthodox. I’ll go with their opinion of his work.

Thats your business. ill stick with Scott et al.

 

[TMC]

Thats your business. ill stick with Scott et al.

Hahn over the current and past Vicars of Christ? OK, that’s your business.

 

[simspt]

I like em (Brown and Hahn) both

 

[abucs]

Hi Zach,

i also went to a Catholic University last year and was told about how the Gospels were just exaggerations and not written by apostles etc.

The ecumenism and liberal theology you speak about has been around for a long time.

So long in fact that it is now beginning to be critiqued itself.

Here is a link from Philip Barnes assessing (and criticising) the dominance of liberal theology in England.

books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jtDxEsBTLDsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA75&dq=barnes+2007+liberal&ots=INc3UnSJ5b&sig=KvtSjZc4nSN2CV5kA04Kr6Ichls#v=onepage&q=barnes%202007%20liberal&f=false

I think the Liberal Theology will fade over the next generation because it simply leads nowhere and is intellectually unsound when challenged. It came into the Catholic Church in the middle of last century through some religious orders and as with characters such as Father Brown, it will fade when that generation leave us.

I think the 1960’s generation got very mixed up and changed a lot of things in society and the Church was no exception. These days, people are challenging where those changes took us and asking for intellectual reasoning for those changes which the liberal theologians can’t credibly supply.