Raymond Brown???

[itsjustdave1988]

CharlesT,

I do not understand inerrancy to mean the literal historicity of every statement in the scriptures. Do you?

Not at all. If the sacred writer did not intend to write history, then it isn’t history.

Cardinal Augustin Bea was selected to lecture the councilar bishops on the historical Catholic understanding of inerrancy at Vatican II. He states: "’***In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this ***inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms’

Now, what does the inspired writer mean, what is he affirming? That’s the question. The answer, according to the magisterium of the Catholic Church and the traditional teaching of Catholicism from the very start is that everything the writer affirms is true, but not everything the writer affirms is understood.

If there is something we don’t understand about Scripture, one is prideful to assert the error is in Scripture and not in our understanding.

Thus, Catholic doctrine continues to insists, as did St. Augustine:

If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." (Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:180)

Fr. Brown asserts instead that Sacred Scripture is errant, even in matters religious!!! This is clearly heretical.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

CharlesT:

I’ve read two books by Brown: “An Introduction to the New Testament” and “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine.”

I recommend both. They are intelligent, very well written and entirely compatible with chruch teaching. Both have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Brown was a superb scholar and took a solid, well reasoned middle course between his critics on both the right and the left.

Best wishes.

Whatever his defects - did St.Thomas Aquinas have none, or St.Augustine ? - the Catholic Church in the USA was enormously fortunate to have a scholar of his calibre.​

Tradition and innovation are equally needed for the Church to be healthy. Neither is bad, both have their place, neither is sufficient. St. Thomas Aquinas was mightily “untraditional” in using (the very dubious) Aristotle. For Aristotle’s works had been condemned. St. Paul was not traditional - he had constant trouble from the Jewish Christians who insisted that Christians must keep the Law of Moses.

Tradition is good, up to a point; but it is there for something far more important than itself. It’s there to preserve the meaning of the Good News of Christ Our Lord - not for its own sake. The Gospel of Christ is to be preached to all the world - that is why it needs both things old and things new. But there is nothing distictively Christian in being traditional, any more than in being prepared to accept modern things. Some Jews were so traditional that Christ rebuked them - & they missed Christ, because their Tradition had led them to expect that the Christ would be very different from the Christ Who came to them. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Fr. Raymond Brown, whose work carries the Imprimatur of Bishop O’Keefe of NY, states:
Elsewhere, he states:On the contrary, Fr. George A. Kelly, whose book also *ironically *carries the Imprimatur of the same Bishop O’Keefe of NY, asserts:
Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea:
One book having an Imprimatur explicitly contradicts another book having an Imprimatur from the very same bishop. They both cannot be correct, so which one is in accord with Catholic doctrine?

An Imprimatur certifies that a book does not contain anything contrary to the faith. That is all. It is not an assertion that the author is correct in all he says, nor does it settle disputed questions.​

Therefore, that judgement was made about two books by authors who did not agree, one of whom criticised the other. This is entirely normal. Theologians are always criticising each other, and have for centuries. That does not make any of the critics or the criticised into bad Catholics or bad theologians.
Father Kelly is fully entitled to criticise the contents of Father Brown’s books - but others are as fully entitled to criticise the criticisms of Father Kelly. That is how theology progresses - by letting all sides be heard, and letting no one voice drown out those that differ from it.

The Bishop can with perfect consistency give the imprimatur to a book containing one theologian’s claims that another is in error on matters of doctrine: for it in no way follows from the granting of the imprimatur to Father Kelly’s book, that the Bishop agrees with his assertions. He does not have to.

Sorry about all the alterations BTW ##

It seems to me that in context with footnote 5 of Dei Verbum 11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II’s teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu:
Hmmm… Fr. Brown isn’t lookin’ too correct at this point.

My diocese has replied to a query from me, and has responded in part: You can read the entire response here:
Inerrancy in Sacred Scripture

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

It is not Fr. Brown’s competence to define Catholic doctine. Thatthat rests solely with the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The official teachings of the Catholic Church, although often greatly assisted by theologians, is never governed by them.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

You can believe what you want, but my diocese has responded authoritatively on the subject, and what you profess, according to them, is heresy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer,

You can believe what you want, but my diocese has responded authoritatively on the subject, and what you profess, according to them, is heresy.

And what do I profess ?​

Your bishop is not my judge in these matters - mine is ##

 

[otm]

MrS:

Late last year, a critique (Lecture) was given at the Catholic Biblical Inerrancy Conference titled “What Have They Done to God’s Word”

The subject matter was primarily on the serious mistakes of Fr Brown. The DVD of the Conference and the CD are available at www.catholicintl.com for those interested. This is the site of the Catholic Apologetics International - Robert Sungenis. He is often a topin on these threads… his expertise is Apologetics, his passion/hobby is physics. And every time he rattles the cages of other catholics (like those here at CA :bigyikes: ), he makes most smile, and a few pull their hair out. So far, he has a remarkable record for accuracy and truth, but still has his critics.

Get the CD, it is at the very LEAST, very INTERESTING.

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.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer,

It is not Fr. Brown’s competence to define Catholic doctine. Thatthat rests solely with the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The official teachings of the Catholic Church, although often greatly assisted by theologians, is never governed by them.

When I say or imply that Fr. Brown had, or claimed, or asserted any such competence, you can pull me up for so saying or implying. But not till then.​

I fully agree with the rest of your post. It is for the bishops; not for self-appointed vigilantes, or apologists, or for priests - for the bishops, and for no one else. It also for the bishops, not for anyone else, to say what is or is not an a permissible interpretation of a theological proposition; not for priests, not vigilantes, not for apologists. And is certainly no one’s business but that of those with the authority to do so, to hand out condemnations for unorthodoxy. So Fathe Kelly is as fully entitled to his freedom to express his opinions and judgements, as you are or I or the people at the RTF or Robert Sungenis. ##

 

[otm]

misericordie:

Thanks!! I always knew Ray Brown was very suspect. When so many liberal and disenting catholics LIKE him something is up. NOW have you heard anything about La Grange?? I belive he had something to do with the Biblical School in Jerusalem and that HE WAS VERY HOLY AND ORTHODOX for a change.

If by that last statement you are implying that Fr. Brown was not holy and orthodox, you might want to show evidence other than what Sungenis has ahd to say.

Have you actually read anything by Brown?

 

[otm]

And we go round and round.
{QUOTEitsjustdave1988]Fr. Brown asserts instead that Sacred Scripture is errant, even in matters religious!!! This is clearly heretical.Would you care to make a specific quote from any of Brown’s works to verify that statement?

I have read several of Brown’s works, and did not find that statement in there. Perhaps you have read somehthing I have not?

Or are you just making that statemetn because someone else said so?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

otm:

If by that last statement you are implying that Fr. Brown was not holy and orthodox, you might want to show evidence other than what Sungenis has ahd to say.

Have you actually read anything by Brown?

Pere Lagrange is under consideration for beatification ​

He was very badly treated during the anti-Modernist “purge” under Pius X - so he can be added to the list of those whom the Church honours in death only after ill-treating them in life.

ccel.org/l/lagrange/

 

[otm]

I have read several of Father Raymond Brown’s works. I have a post graduate degree, and while it is not in Theology, it did teach me to read very carefully, and to discern what was actually said, and how it was said.

I have found several things.

1. Brown is not an easy read, as he is writing “technically” as oposed to writing for a layman. In other words, his writings are directed more to the world of scholars than the world of people in the pew.
2. He is very careful to outline the parameters of his question and research; in other words, the research is very limited in its scope. I have talked to people who have read his works, and didn’t even seem to see that initial part, and when it was pointed out, did not understand what it meant in terms of the scope of the work.
3. Because they are scholarly works, they are something probably best left alone by the untrained layman. It is somewhat akin to a layman reading an appealate court decision on, for example, a search and seizure question. Most people who read it don’t even begin to understand it, and “know” that the decision is “wrong” and the judges are “liberals”. Never mind that the decision looks like it came from a strict constructionist, they just “know”.
4. Because they are scholarly works, there are other scholars who will disagree, or agree with certain parts and disagree with other parts. Too often the untrained laymen seizes upon another scholar as “proof” that Brown’s works are wrong, or heretical, without determining whether the critic is even trained in the field they are criticizing. The granting of an advanced degree in Theology does not thereby make that individual an expert in all areas of theology, or even necessarily an expert in any area (they can be wrong in their own area).
5. Brown’s works raise a lot of hackles, particularly among those who are not widely read, and those who do not read carefully.
6. Brown’s area of expertise is only one area of Scriptural theology, and not necessarily the most important, and at times it is given more credit than it should - by both his admirers and his detractors.
7. A lot of people’s understanding intellectually of their faith is simplistic. We don’t get to Heaven on intellectual depth, but on faith. Brown’s works are not for those of a simplistic intellectual understanding; the most likely result would be damage to their faith. But that does not make Brown’t works wrong, or illegitimate, or heretical. Scholarly works are available to anyone and everyone now, and the phrase “caveat emptor” is even more critical. 50. 60 or 100 years ago, almost no one but scholars would be reading Brown’s works. Life has changed, and so have the challenges.

 

[philipmarus]

Tell me, What good can come from a parish priest who bases his Sunday Homily regarding Jesus’s birth on what he read in Mr. Brown’s book regarding the scientific conclusion that the infancy narratives are probably not historical ? Or perhaps a homily on how the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 didn’t really happen. This is orthodoxy? I’ve read about being done in places.

There are some want to say: well one can undermine faith using the historical-critical method as a purely academic endeavor and it don’t effect anything.

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.

 

[BibleReader]

philipmarus:

[/color:

Fr. Brown may have made errors here and there LIKE YOU DO, IN THIS VERY POST, but I wouldn’t blow my stack over them…

I’m just a layman and am not giving Imprimatur to myself the way Raymond Brown did asserting they are free from error.

BIBLEREADER:

Instead of doing that, philipmarus, why don’t you go to the library, get a copy of Ray Brown’s Birth of the Messiah and read it and then comment on it here after quoting it in context.

Again, many critics want the Bible to be what they think it is.

Most who go after Ray Brown go after him because the ones going after him are “jot-and-tittle-ists.” They demand that every jot and tittle of the Bible be shockingly true.

It isn’t. They’re wrong.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

## And what do I profess ?

Your bishop is not my judge in these matters - mine is ##

Who is your bishop? Perhaps we can write to him as I have written to mine.

What you profess, in your own words, was: “I’m arguing against the error of inerrantism.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

otm:

And we go round and round. …
I have read several of Brown’s works, and did not find that statement in there. Perhaps you have read somehthing I have not?

Or are you just making that statemetn because someone else said so?

Read post #17 above, as I have already quoted from Fr. Brown where he asserts religious error in Sacred Scripture.

 

[otm]

philipmarus:

Tell me, What good can come from a parish priest who bases his Sunday Homily regarding Jesus’s birth on what he read in Mr. Brown’s book regarding the scientific conclusion that the infancy narratives are probably not historical ? Or perhaps a homily on how the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 didn’t really happen. This is orthodoxy? I’ve read about being done in places.

See my comments above. And if you can’t understand them, I’ll put it plainly: I think it is stupid. Odds are the priest didn’t understand what he read, and he is then applying it to people who will understand even less.

philipmarus:

There are some want to say: well one can undermine faith using the historical-critical method as a purely academic endeavor and it don’t effect anything.

I don’t know of anyone who says that anyone can undermine the faith using the historical-critical method as a purely academic endeavor, nor do I know of anyone who says it doesn’t affect anyone.

But if you are saying that because the historical-critical method can undermine faith, one should never do research using that method, that is a different issue. I do not believe that most, if any, scholars set out to undermine faith. I do believe that the fault, if there is fault, is less with the scholars than with those wo would make scholarly works available to the masses; but that is not a problem isolated to theology. A prime example would be in the medical field, with information and theories about treatment of cancer, for example. There is a lot of information available that could damage someone, physically, spiritually, psychologically, morally, etc. That does not make the information less truthful, however.

What I do have a problem with is the use that is often made of that information, particularly when it is not conveyed accurately.

Because of how Brown phrases the question, answers are given that seem to create a denial of part of our faith. I think that rather, it confirms that our faith is not founded on Scripture alone, but on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium, a point Brown makes in his work. They seem to crate a denial of faith because those who read a) don’t read critically, b) don’t read thoroughly, and c) often do not have enough training to determine what part Tradition and the Magesterium play (or they ignore or forget it).

 

[BibleReader]

itsjustdave1988:

Fr. Raymond Brown, whose work carries the Imprimatur of Bishop O’Keefe of NY, states:
Elsewhere, he states:On the contrary, Fr. George A. Kelly, whose book also *ironically *carries the Imprimatur of the same Bishop O’Keefe of NY, asserts:
Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea:
One book having an Imprimatur explicitly contradicts another book having an Imprimatur from the very same bishop. They both cannot be correct, so which one is in accord with Catholic doctrine?

It seems to me that in context with footnote 5 of Dei Verbum 11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II’s teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu:
Hmmm… Fr. Brown isn’t lookin’ too correct at this point.

My diocese has replied to a query from me, and has responded in part: You can read the entire response here:
Inerrancy in Sacred Scripture

Okay there, justDave, so the Church should also stop quoting Jerome (who denied the canonicity of Judith), Aquinas (who said that a soul was conferred up quickening, only) and Origen (who was twice found guilty of heresy)?

In other words, lets say he screwed-up in the sentence cited.

How about the other 10,000,000 sentences he wrote?

Do you see my point? WHY DON’T YOU ALSO GO AFTER HIS CRITICS? THEY, TOO, ERR!

As I suggested in another thread, perhaps the problem with Fr. Brown is that he was clear.

 

[otm]

itsjustdave1988:

Read post #17 above, as I have already quoted from Fr. Brown where he asserts religious error in Sacred Scripture.

OK, lets take your second quote. How do you deal with Job and the after life?

 

[BibleReader]

Additionally, justDave, I’d like to know your and Diocese’s answer to this question: Which of these is correct?

In Acts 9:7 Luke (the author of Acts) says that when Paul was struck off his horse by the light from God…

7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Acts 9:7.

But then, later, here is what Paul says…

9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. Acts 22:9.