Raymond Brown???

[BibleReader]

itsjustdave1988:

Jerome denied the canonicity of Judith, until Pope Damasus I canonized Judith. Then, he “followed the judgment of the Churches” and included Judith in his Latin Vulgate. Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas stated on his death bed,
I have several books from Fr. Raymond Brown on my shelf, only some of which were mandatory reading for my post-graduate religious studies. I use his New Jerome Biblical Commentary quite often. I recommended his works to an RCIA candidate that I sponsored into the Church a couple years ago. He’s a great Scripture scholar, but he rely’s upon historical-critical exegesis almost exclusively.

His Biblical scholarship is no more authoritative or less authoritative than other Protestant scholars who use the same exegesis from the Protestant Union Theological Seminary, where R. Brown learned his Biblical exegesis. In comparing R. Browns work to that of Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger, I’d have to say that Metzger is his superior. Nonetheless, they both make the error of exegeting Scripture apart from the tradition of the Catholic Chuch. As such, neither Brown’s or Metzger’s Bible scholarship adheres to Catholic hermeneutics.

The Church shouldn’t stop quoting from saints who have erred in the past. Yet, Fr. R. Brown is not canonized. Moreover, his theological treatise called *Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections *has the worthy honor of being the only treatise criticized by an American Catholic bishop since 1965. (cf. Kelly, George, *The New Biblical Theorists, *pg 69). The critic was Cardinal Lawrence Shehan, writing in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. R. Brown’s book raised doubts about the biblical basis of both episcopacy and priesthood, stating:
Catholics are bound to give their religious submission of intellect and will to the ordinary teachings of the Roman Pontiff. Dei Verbum 11 affirms the teaching of Providentissiumus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. No magisterial text states otherwise. I submit to the magisterium.

In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith asserts that the “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is a *de fide *article of faith that demands our assent of faith. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the *Profession Fidei, *29 June 1998, par. 11, ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM)

The Catholic Church teaches the absence of error in Sacred Scripture. Fr. Brown teaches othewise. On this issue, I think Fr. Brown has certainly made an error. Whenever a scholar teaches contrary to the magisterium, I submit to the magisterium.

Oh, my Heavens!

Dave, maybe Ray Brown just DIED before he could write, “I submit…” etc.

Aquinas never recanted saying that the fetus receives its soul only months after conception.

And still the popes canonized him.

So, I should condemn the papacy???

Stop being so CRAZY about poor Raymond Brown!!!

Note: YOU made an error about Aquinas!!!

GET OFF THIS SITE, HERETIC!!!

Do you get my point?

Again, Father Brown was a nice Catholic who, like that heretic Aquinas, makes errors. Gee!

 

[BibleReader]

BibleReader:

Oh, my Heavens!

Dave, maybe Ray Brown just DIED before he could write, “I submit…” etc.

Aquinas never recanted saying that the fetus receives its soul only months after conception.

And still the popes canonized him.

So, I should condemn the papacy???

Stop being so CRAZY about poor Raymond Brown!!!

Note: YOU made an error about Aquinas!!!

GET OFF THIS SITE, HERETIC!!!

Do you get my point?

Again, Father Brown was a nice Catholic who, like that heretic Aquinas, makes errors. Gee!

By the way, Dave, Aquinas makes other errors. Obvious ones. For centuries folks have been saying, “OF COURSE we can prove God’s existence!” And then they cite Aquinas.

God’s existence can’t be “proven.” That would violate ineffability – God’s inherent “above-ness.” The logic God gave us is only a partial share of the reality in and of God’s mind. Because it is only partial, it can’t take us as high. If the logic in our minds can’t even see all of the digits in a transcendental number, how could the same logic possibly prove the reality of of the mind out of which those transcendental numbers come?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BibleReader:

Dave, maybe Ray Brown just DIED before he could write, “I submit…” etc.

I’m sure he’s in heaven recanting of it right now.

Aquinas never recanted saying that the fetus receives its soul only months after conception.

Actually, the Catholic magisterium to this day has not defined when the fetus receives a rational soul. So I don’t believe there’s anything to recant of.

Stop being so CRAZY about poor Raymond Brown!!!

I’m crazy about defending Catholic dogma. I’m kinda goofy that way. Shouldn’t all Catholics?

I really have no beef with Raymond Brown, mistaken as he was. Much of what he says is very insightful. My problem is with those who still contend against the statements of the magisterium, saying that the Bible has errors in it, quoting from the supposed “saint” Brown as their support. Biblical theories are no substitute for Catholic doctrine. Do you know what I mean?

According to canon law, we have an obligation as Catholics to give our religious submission of intellect and will to the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff, whether solemnly or ordinarly promulgated. For a professed Catholic to blantantly reject that obligation, and describe the papal encyclicals on inerrantism as an error is indefensible.

So long as there are disobedient Catholics on this forum teaching against the Catholic dogma of Biblical inerrantism, I will be here to provide a rebuttal, to give what the magisterium has taught for the past 2000 years.

Note: YOU made an error about Aquinas!!!

I’ve studied Aquinas for many years. While it’s possible I’ve made an error, perhaps you can quote the magisterial document that defines the precise time a rational soul is infused in the fetus.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

As for the free opinion regarding ensoulment theories, consider the following:

**Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith **
Questio de abortu
(Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974), n.19:

“This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (i) supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (ii) on the other hand it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a human being, not only waiting for, but already in possession of her/his soul.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

You said:

God’s existence can’t be “proven.”

St. Paul said:

What can be known about God is plain to [the wicked], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking. (Rom 1:19ff)

St. Irenaeus said:

Although the power of God is invisible, it bestows upon all a profound mental intuition and a perception of His most powerful and omnipotent presence. Whence, even if no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son has given a revelation, nevertheless all do know this, at least, that there is one God and Lord of all, because the reason implanted in their minds moves them and reveals it to them. Against Heresies, 2, 6, 1, ca. AD 189]

St. Athanasius said:

if the soul’s own teaching is insufficient becase of the external things which cloud the mind and prevent its seeing what is superior, it is still possible for it to attain to a knowledge of God from the things that are seen; for creation, as if in written characters and by means of its order and harmony, declares in a loud voice its own Master and Creator. *Treatise Against the Pagans, *34, 3, ca. AD 318]

St. Gregory of Nazianz said:

It is one thing to be persuaded of the existenc of something, and another thing entirely to know what it is. That God does exist and that He is the efficient and sustaining Cause of all things is taught us by our eyes and by the order in nature … upon beholding these visible and orderly things we reason back to their Author.
*Second Theological Oration, *28, 5, ca. AD 380]

St. Jerome said:

Ours and every other race of men knows God naturally. There are no peoples who do not recognize their Creator naturally. *Treatise on Psalm 95 (96): Corpus Chirstianorum *78, 154, ca. AD 401)

St. Augustine said:

“I would more easily have doubted my own existence than I would have doubted that truth is that which is clarly seen, being understood through the things that are made.” *Confessions, *7, 10, 16, ca. AD 400]

Pope St. Pius X said:

We know that there is a God because reason proves it and faith confirms it. (*Catechism of Pius X, *First Article of the Creed)

Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent) said:

… guided solely by the light of nature, advances slowly by reasoning on sensible objects and effects, and only after long and laborious investigation [humans are] able at length to contemplate with difficulty the invisible things of God, to discover and understand a First Cause and Author of all things. Roman Catechism, First Article of the Creed]

*Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *

God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things (DE FIDE)

The Vatican Council defined: … “if anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit” D 1806; CF. 1785, 1391"(pg.13)
*
Catechism of the Catholic Church;

Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. (CCC 31)

"The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe. As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (CCC 32).

“… in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality ‘that everyone calls God’”. (CCC 34)

“Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.” (CCC 35)

“When he listens to the message of creation and to the voice of conscience, man can arrive at certainty about the existence of God, the cause and the end of everything.” (CCC 46)

Hmmmmmm… I’m gonna go with what the Church teaches, in the way the Church intends, thanks.

 

[MrS]

otm:

Given some of the things that have issued from Mr. Sungenis, I would approach anything he has to say with something between caution and exteme caution.

Good for you… I am glad you will at least approach his works.
Find me some works by other current apologists that are better than his “Not By…” series if you can.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[MrS]

philipmarus:

The JBC Imprimatur was given by Brown himself. I’ve seen it.

Even Staff Apologist for Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin discourages people from using the Jerome Biblical Commentary if I’m not mistaken from listening to Catholic Answers Live.

As well he should.

 

[Deacon2006]

Avoid Raymond Brown if the desire of your bible study is for the benefit of your soul. If you want to generate honorary degrees from prostestant seminaries then he’s your man.

God Bless

 

[MrS]

Deacon2006:

Avoid Raymond Brown if the desire of your bible study is for the benefit of your soul. If you want to generate honorary degrees from prostestant seminaries then he’s your man.

God Bless

Thanks, that is probably the best and most precise advice so far. God has opened your eyes well, and you have responded by opening your mouth to speak to this issue.

 

[CharlesT]

Deacon2006:

Avoid Raymond Brown if the desire of your bible study is for the benefit of your soul. If you want to generate honorary degrees from prostestant seminaries then he’s your man.

God Bless

Deacon, with all respect, Father Brown was twice named (by two different Popes) to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

I think his Catholic credentials are sound.

Best wishes.

 

[MrS]

CharlesT:

Deacon, with all respect, Father Brown was twice named (by two different Popes) to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

I think his Catholic credentials are sound.

Best wishes.

And Kasper was made a Cardinal… and look at some of the things he has said. Belonging to the PBC apparently is not an assurance of credibility.

 

[CharlesT]

MrS:

Belonging to the PBC apparently is not an assurance of credibility.

Maybe not an assurance, MrS, but pretty good evidence in my view.

This is a great thread, by the way. I’ve enjoyed and appreciated everyone’s takes.

Best wishes.

 

[whosebob]

CharlesT:

Deacon, with all respect, Father Brown was twice named (by two different Popes) to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

I think his Catholic credentials are sound.

Best wishes.

Despite his credentials, Brown is not “sound” from a Catholic point-of-view. Yes, he is greatly hailed as one of the best within the school of modern historical-critical Biblical scholarship. But his conclusions are often at odds with authentic Catholic interpretation of the NT and OT, as given to us by the Church’s Magisterium. Two examples:

(1) Brown charges that Jesus suffered from human ignorance, which cuts to the quick of the Catholic dogma of the hypostatic union, and its consequence that from the very first moment of his conception, Jesus beheld in his human mind the fullness of the beatific vision.

(2) Brown charges Our Lord Jesus with holding superstitious views regarding demons.

For a closer look at and analysis of the errors of Brown and other scholars, review the following:

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

The Consciousness of Christ

By the way, I don’t want to imply that the works of all modern Biblical scholars, even Brown’s in particular, are entirely bankrupt. Far from it, but their research and conclusions have often been conducted and formed in a vacuum apart from the guidance that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church in the exercise of its teaching authority across the centuries.

Now from a purely academic point of view, that is not necessarily a problem. But it poses a huge problem when heterodox or outright heretical (and highly tentative, in many cases) conclusions by those researches become the “meat and potatoes” of what is taught to seminarians, and then is in turn dished out during Sunday homilies, in one form or another, to the unsuspecting and ill-formed John and Jane Catholics in the pews.

For a fairly balanced analysis of all sorts of classis and modern approaches to Biblical interpretation and criticism, I highly recommend the following:

A Catholic Guide to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Many Worlds of Scripture
With Faith, Reason and Praxis

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[patg]

Deacon2006:

Avoid Raymond Brown if the desire of your bible study is for the benefit of your soul.

Please explain - nothing Raymond Brown has written has affected the soul of anyone I know. I would have quite totally rejected the church years ago if I had not discovered Brown, Jphn Meier, Margaret Ralph, and the Jesus Seminar - they are what opened the up the beauty and depth of the bible to me.

(I’ll also throw in Divino Afflante Spiritu and *Dei Verbum *in which the church added its blessing to such research).

Pat

 

[CharlesT]

patg:

Please explain - nothing Raymond Brown has written has affected the soul of anyone I know. I would have quite totally rejected the church years ago if I had not discovered Brown, Ralph, and the Jesus Seminar - they are what opened the up the beauty and depth of the bible to me.

Pat

Pat,

Please do not equate Fr Brown with the Jesus Seminar.

Fr Brown is Catholic, intelligent and scholarly in approach. The Jesus Seminar is none of the above.

Best wishes.

 

[MrS]

patg:

Please explain - nothing Raymond Brown has written has affected the soul of anyone I know. I would have quite totally rejected the church years ago if I had not discovered Brown, Ralph, and the Jesus Seminar - they are what opened the up the beauty and depth of the bible to me.

(I’ll also throw in Divino Afflante Spiritu and *Dei Verbum *in which the church added its blessing to such research).

Pat

Your profile says Catholic by birth???

I am Catholic by choice.

IMHO Brown is Catholic by default. And de fault is his as evidenced by much of his writings. Our local college, Univ of Michigan, has a student chapel with a “Director of Faith Formation” who uses Fr. Brown as a mentor. Her programs are based on his idea that any faith is as good as another if Christ is your goal. So you don’t HAVE to be Catholic. Bull!!

 

[CharlesT]

MrS:

Your profile says Catholic by birth???

I am Catholic by choice.

IMHO Brown is Catholic by default. And de fault is his as evidenced by much of his writings. Our local college, Univ of Michigan, has a student chapel with a “Director of Faith Formation” who uses Fr. Brown as a mentor. Her programs are based on his idea that any faith is as good as another if Christ is your goal. So you don’t HAVE to be Catholic. Bull!!

MrS,

Being an adult convert I, too, am a Catholic by choice.

I think Fr Brown was, also (although not a convert to the best of my knowledge). Nothing in what I have read of his writing repudiates or questions the Catholic faith. (Dave points to one sentence he says is heretical among a large body of work that is cleary not heretical.)

I don’t know what you mean by “So you don’t HAVE to be Catholic.” Can you clarify this?

Why do you say that the “Director of Faith Formation” uses Fr Brown as a mentor?

Why do you by extension judge Fr Brown on the basis of who might claim him as a mentor? He can’t control that.

MrS, Fr Brown was not an enemy of the faith. There are plenty of people out there who are. Let’s focus on them.

Best wishes.

 

[patg]

CharlesT:

Please do not equate Fr Brown with the Jesus Seminar.
Fr Brown is Catholic, intelligent and scholarly in approach. The Jesus Seminar is none of the above.

I’m not equating them, I’m just saying that they were all valuable tools in my research. I think it is good that the seminar is not catholic (although many members are) - why would you ever only accept research from a group which has a huge stake in supporting its traditional beliefs?

Do we only the read the research reports of the tobaco companies when investigating the effects of smoking??? I want to know what is thought by researchers outside the control of church doctrine. I’m not saying you should accept it, any more than you should accept church doctrine without knowing what it is you are accepting.

You state that the Jesus Seminar is not intelligent or scholarly - well, I have read the books by their critics (such as Luke Johnson and Lee Strobel) and they are MUCH less intelligent and INFINITELY less scholarly.

Pat

 

[CharlesT]

patg:

I’m not equating them, I’m just saying that they were all valuable tools in my research. I think it is good that the seminar is not catholic (although many members are) - why would you ever only accept research from a group which has a huge stake in supporting its traditional beliefs?

Do we only the read the research reports of the tobaco companies when investigating the effects of smoking??? I want to know what is thought by researchers outside the control of church doctrine. I’m not saying you should accept it, any more than you should accept church doctrine without knowing what it is you are accepting.

You state that the Jesus Seminar is not intelligent or scholarly - well, I have read the books by their critics (such as Luke Johnson and Lee Strobel) and they are MUCH less intelligent and INFINITELY less scholarly.

Pat

Pat, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.

And I agree that reading as widely as possible is a good thing.

Without commenting on Luke Johnson or Lee Strobel, I do believe that the Jesus Seminar is largely discredited within academic circles. It seems to be mainly a creature of the popular media.

Best wishes.

 

[otm]

itsjustdave1988:

Gottle,

I’m not living in Aquinas’ day. Today, he is a saint and Doctor of the Church. If Fr. Brown is made saint and doctor, I’ll take him more seriously. For now, he’s just another scholar whose exegesis is no different than Protestant exegesis.

Moreover, according to the current magisterium, to which I owe my obedience, the “immutable” dogma of the Church affirms: "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts"

You are playing mind games with words, my man. As far as I have read, Father Brown does not disagree with the issue of inerrancy of

Scripture as the Church understands that term. To the layman in the pew, if Balaams *** spoke, then somewhere in anicient history there was an *** that spoke words. I do believe the church would allow that the whole of that passage was not to state a historical fact, but a theological point.

As I tried, apparently unsucc3essfully, above to point out, Brown is very careful to deliniate the scope of his question. You are jumping for the answer to that question to a universal, which Brown did not do; he simply was investigating within only the bounds of Scritpture, if something, such as the the ability to trace through Scripture the procession from apostles to bishops and priests was possible. People take that to mean that he is saying there is no connection. He didn’t say that; he only sid that within the wrttien Word, it isn’t traceable.

Much of what we have in our faith is not specifically spelled out in Scripture. However, our faith is not one of Sola Scriptura, but Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magesterium. Brown denies neither Tradition nor the Magesterium, but because people cannot understand that he asked a limited question, they take his answer to be one without limits. His answer has limits, and the problems start when people will not acknoweldge that fact. They take Brown to be saying all sorts of things he didn’t say.

There is another, rather subtle comment you are making which you appear to base your comments. The fact that he graduated from a Protestant school of theology doesn’t make him a Protestant scholar any more that someone graduating from a Protestant school of law makes them a Protestant lawyer. He learned a methodology there. Methodology is neither Protestant nor Catholic, it is simply a method. The method can be applied equally by a Catholic and a Protestant theologian to the same subject matter and come up with different conclusions for the reason that they both start with different assumptions. One of those assumptions that separate the two has to do with Sola Scriptura. Brown was a faithful Catholic, and as a faithful Catholic rejected that assumption. So your subtle comment of making him to be a Protestant theologian simply doesn’t stand.