Raymond Brown???

[BibleReader]

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.

The moral of the story is, WHY AREN’T YOUR CRITICS ATTACKING AQUINAS? WHY ARE THEY LAZY ABOUT AQUINAS, BUT ENERGETIC ABOUT FATHER BROWN?

The moral of the story is, Scripture is difficult. Relax. Father Brown, a good Catholic and a clear writer, had much that is valuable to say.

 

[CharlesT]

BibleReader:

The moral of the story is, Scripture is difficult. Relax. Father Brown, a good Catholic and a clear writer, had much that is valuable to say.

Amen.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BibleReader:

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.

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,

“if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church***, in whose obedience****** I now pass from this life.***”

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:

The presbyter-bishops described in the New Testament were not in any traceable way the successors of the Twelve apostles. (pg. 72)

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

otm:

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

Where does the sacred writer err in denying the afterlife?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. R. Brown was merely a biblical theorists. His teachings have no more doctrinal authority than any other graduate of the Protestant Union Theological Seminary.

In all things, I defer to the teachings of the authentic magisterium instead of the counter-magisterial assertions of Fr. Brown.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

My answer is the same as has been affirmed by the magisterium of the Church from the very start:

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)

But one possible explaination is that the author intended to give two variant traditions. “An inspired author could record two variant traditions, without affirming either one” (Fr. William Most, Basic Scripture). This is a preferable explaination than simply asserting that the author erred, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

“it is absolutely wrong and forbidden … to admit that the sacred writer has erred… This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.” (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 11, cf. footnote 5, from Divino Afflante Spiritu and Providentissimus Deus)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gottle_of_Geer,

You said:

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

I found this statement of your rather surprising given what you asserted previously:

“I’m very disappointed - people keep saying that Popes have taught [the inerrancy of Scripture] and reafffirmed it (which is true enough; for they have); but no one has explained why it should be believed true in the first place” …

“The trouble with inerrantism, is that it is insisted on, not because it is required by the Biblical texts, but because it has believed in by representatives of Christian Tradition. People don’t look at the texts, to see whether the texts can bear such a doctrine - they believe it because the Popes insist on it.” …

“inerrantism is a mistake. It does not arise from the texts, nor from what they say, but from the mistaken ideas of men - holy men no doubt, but still mistaken. Even if they are Martyrs, Doctors, miracle-workers.” …

“… we are that Church. Not the Magisterium alone, but all of us together”

Yes, Catholics are goofy that way, believing what the popes insist on.

 

[CharlesT]

itsjustdave1988:

Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. R. Brown was merely a biblical theorists. His teachings have no more doctrinal authority than any other graduate of the Protestant Union Theological Seminary.

In all things, I defer to the teachings of the authentic magisterium instead of the counter-magisterial assertions of Fr. Brown.

Dave,

Are you claiming to be the infallible and authentic voice of the magisterium?

Best wishes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

A lot depends on what is meant by “the infancy narratives are probably not historical”.​

That is not the same as saying “Jesus never existed” - and is not at all the same as saying “The gospels are wrong, or lying, or unreliable”. Nor does it follow that people say this are less than orthodox. Nor does it follow that the Popes, by allowing the sort of methods which allow such conclusions, are betraying the Faith.
otm has already done a very good job of explaining things. ##

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.

Faith can be undermined by any number of things - not just that method. It can be undermined by the traditional approach to the Bible every bit as thoroughly. It’s a pity that more “traditionally-minded” people seem not to see this - so often, people seem to write as though problems come only from the ways of thinking that they criticise, and never from their own. We have to learn to avoid making the ways of thinking we find helpful, into absolutes - whether in liturgy, or theology, or Biblical studies, or anything else. How can we learn, if we ignore what we don’t like, or don’t know already, or find unfamiliar ?​

A way of expressing or of understanding the Faith or part of it, does not become free of danger merely because it is one’s own preferred way. And who is suggesting that the historical-critical method should be used in order to undermine faith ? Apart from anything else, that is not what that method is for. ##

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.

A good book can do great harm in the hands of people who do not know how to make good use of it. So that was probably very good advice. That does not make it any less worth reading, or any less orthodox. Those of us with no understanding of maths would be very ill-advised to set ourselves up as judges of anything which required mathematical calculation. It would be very impertinent to do such a thing. And exactly the same applies to those who know nothing of Biblical studies. Zeal for truth is not enough to make one competent to comment on matters about which one knows very little.​

What we all have, is faith - the pity is, that sometimes the knowledge we have through faith can dazzle us into thinking that whatever does not fit the way in which we express our grasp of this Faith must be wrong. Sometimes it may be; sometimes, it is just different from our ways of thinking; and sometimes, we can learn a great deal from what is unfamiliar ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CharlesT:

Dave,

Are you claiming to be the infallible and authentic voice of the magisterium?

Best wishes.

Not at all. The Solemn Magisterium is, as well as the universal ordinary magisterium. Cardinal Ratzinger says biblical inerrancy is dogma of Catholic faith. That’s authoritative enough for me.

I asked my bishop what to think of this claim that “inerrantism is mistaken” and the reply was that such is not in accord with Catholic doctrine.

I’m not infallible, but I submit to the bishop’s teachings.

 

[CharlesT]

## A lot depends on what is meant by “the infancy narratives are probably not historical”.

That is not the same as saying “Jesus never existed” - and is not at all the same as saying “The gospels are wrong, or lying, or unreliable”. Nor does it follow that people say this are less than orthodox. Nor does it follow that the Popes, by allowing the sort of methods which allow such conclusions, are betraying the Faith.
otm has already done a very good job of explaining things. ##

Faith can be undermined by any number of things - not just that method. It can be undermined by the traditional approach to the Bible every bit as thoroughly. It’s a pity that more “traditionally-minded” people seem not to see this - so often, people seem to write as though problems come only from the ways of thinking that they criticise, and never from their own. We have to learn to avoid making the ways of thinking we find helpful, into absolutes - whether in liturgy, or theology, or Biblical studies, or anything else. How can we learn, if we ignore what we don’t like, or don’t know already, or find unfamiliar ?​

A way of expressing or of understanding the Faith or part of it, does not become free of danger merely because it is one’s own preferred way. And who is suggesting that the historical-critical method should be used in order to undermine faith ? Apart from anything else, that is not what that method is for. ##

A good book can do great harm in the hands of people who do not know how to make good use of it. So that was probably very good advice. That does not make it any less worth reading, or any less orthodox. Those of us with no understanding of maths would be very ill-advised to set ourselves up as judges of anything which required mathematical calculation. It would be very impertinent to do such a thing. And exactly the same applies to those who know nothing of Biblical studies. Zeal for truth is not enough to make one competent to comment on matters about which one knows very little.​

What we all have, is faith - the pity is, that sometimes the knowledge we have through faith can dazzle us into thinking that whatever does not fit the way in which we express our grasp of this Faith must be wrong. Sometimes it may be; sometimes, it is just different from our ways of thinking; and sometimes, we can learn a great deal from what is unfamiliar ##

Gottle of Geer,

I agree.

Our faith has grown through the centuries due in part to the fact that God gave us minds to inquire constantly and constantly to search for ways of finding Him. We entrust the Church to guide us and protect us in this.

As far as I know, the Church not only did not condemn Fr Brown, it endorsed and commended his work.

Best wishes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

That’s Fr Brown - not Mister​

If I were a parish priest I would use what would build up the faith of the believing community, and ignore the tricky and intricate questions about the infancy narratives. One can very well find an immense amount of profit in them without even thinking about the questions of their historicity. And parish priest should build up their people’s faith - not use the pulpit to promote any particular approach or method. IOW, use what can be used, and don’t use what can’t. And pray. A priest who doesn’t pray, is hardly a priest at all - and exactly the same applies to us.

Critical questions do need to be addressed - but not from the pulpit. The place for them is outside the Liturgy. Christian preaches preaches Christ - not the Papacy, or the Magisterium, or Fatima, or apparitions, or Biblical studies, but Jesus Christ Crucified, Risen, and Glorified. Jesus Christ, not the Church or what is in it, is the Gospel. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Not at all. The Solemn Magisterium is, as well as the universal ordinary magisterium. Cardinal Ratzinger says biblical inerrancy is dogma of Catholic faith. That’s authoritative enough for me.

I asked my bishop what to think of this claim that “inerrantism is mistaken” and the reply was that such is not in accord with Catholic doctrine.

I’m not infallible, but I submit to the bishop’s teachings.

Is your bishop in the habit of condemning people without asking them to explain precisely what they mean by the words they use? ​

The formulae about inerrancy are meaningless if it is not pointed out that an orthodox formula may well be understood in an erroneous manner, and an ill-sounding formula may be perfectly orthodox.

This is nothing new - and it is an excellent reason why self-appointed vigilantes are no replacement for bishops and the theologians on whom they rely. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Who is your bishop, Gottle, and have you even bothered to write to him on the matter?

Perhaps you can tell him your theories as to the “error of inerrantism” which you admit the popes have affirmed. Be sure to include these assertions of yours…

“I’m very disappointed - people keep saying that Popes have taught [the inerrancy of Scripture] and reafffirmed it (which is true enough; for they have); but no one has explained why it should be believed true in the first place” …

“The trouble with inerrantism, is that it is insisted on, not because it is required by the Biblical texts, but because it has believed in by representatives of Christian Tradition. People don’t look at the texts, to see whether the texts can bear such a doctrine - they believe it because the Popes insist on it.” …

“inerrantism is a mistake. It does not arise from the texts, nor from what they say, but from the mistaken ideas of men - holy men no doubt, but still mistaken. Even if they are Martyrs, Doctors, miracle-workers.” …

“… we are that Church. Not the Magisterium alone, but all of us together”

… then quibble about how you meant the above in the most “orthodox” sense.

Cardinal Ratzinger states:

1. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as ***irreformable.***11

These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law. …

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 [Dei Verbum 11] the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31

(Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the *Professio Fidei, *29 June 1998, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. R. Brown was merely a biblical theorists. His teachings have no more doctrinal authority than any other graduate of the Protestant Union Theological Seminary.

In all things, I defer to the teachings of the authentic magisterium instead of the counter-magisterial assertions of Fr. Brown.

In his life time, Friar Thomas was…Friar Thomas - not St.Thomas of Aquino, Doctor of the Church & Angel of the Schools. Dumb Ox, yes - Doctor Communis, no.​

Some of his ideas were even condemned in 1277, three after his death. A condemnation by the bishop of Oxford was not lifted until 1325, two after his canonisation (though by then it was a dead letter). And his canonisation in no way alters the fact that Aristotle in 1256, when Thomas was still a comparatively young teacher, was still a very dubious character some of whose writings had earlier been condemned.

So the fact that historical criticism is under a cloud for some, and that its practitioners are too, has to be seen in context - it is not the first time that the Church has been very doubtful indeed about an untraditional method, and has then given it room in the Church. St. Thomas looks like a paragon of perfect Catholic orthodoxy, and Father Brown looks like a very dubious character, only because St. Thomas is not seen in his historical setting. If he could disagree with the Fathers - but always with the great respect that is so characteristic of his writing - why may not theologians and Biblical scholars differ from him and them ? There is is nothing captious or disrespectful or trivial-minded in doing so - people disagree with their contemporaries and predecessors for reasons which are often very weighty indeed. The holy immobility some people seem to want in the Church and in theology is a mirage - it never existed, not in St. Jerome’s time, not in St. Thomas’ time, any more than now. And thank God for that.

Thomas was no more special or authoritative in his own time or for many after his death than Father Brown is now. St.Thomas did not go round in a halo He was a theology professor (like not a few other Dominican friars); he was not the only theology professor of his time to be come a Doctor - so has St. Bonaventure; and although he was certainly a distinguished theologian (again, like Father Brown), his was not the only method allowed or allowable. He was out of the ordinary only in this one respect: he was a saint. And the Church needs scholar-saints as much as ever. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

A good answer I found in a Protestant book pointed out that the word for “voice” in the the Greek in the two passages is phone - and that it can also mean “sound”.​

AFAIK this solution has the virtue of being the simplest and of raising no problems.

IMO, we are also meant to see a link to the Baptism of Jesus - something similar happened there. And there is also probably a link with Isaiah 6:

**Isa 6:10 **Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

IOW, perhaps there is a bit of theology here: some hear a sound but not a voice - still less the Voice of Christ or His Father. In fact, ISTM there is a ton of theology here
Especially if Isaiah 6 was considered by St. Paul to be an OT appearance of Christ.

There is also probably a backward glance at Genesis 11 and Pentecost and Joel 2; and a forward glance at the ministry of St. Paul himself ##

 

[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"

 

[psalm90]

BibleReader:

Ray Brown is okay. He died a few years ago, but I was able to consult with him on some of the magazine articles I have written. He was somewhat misunderstood.
QUOTE]

Please don’t take this personally, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that Brown was misunderstood.

Brown wrote a lot, and he didn’t mince words. He was dead sure of his opinions and I can’t think of how anybody would have misunderstood him, except in isolated cases.

In the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, he outlined why a lot of Genesis was fiction, in his view, and why the Church should revise / retract the doctrine of original sin. What does anybody misunderstand about that? What was his misunderstood on?

 

[misericordie]

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?

To deny as he did that Jesus intended a Church, to say that Genesis was mostly fiction, etc, etc, is UNHOLY AND UNORTHODOX=in these matters I listen ONLY to the Official magisterium, not Brown’s OPINIONS.

 

[misericordie]

## In his life time, Friar Thomas was…Friar Thomas - not St.Thomas of Aquino, Doctor of the Church & Angel of the Schools. Dumb Ox, yes - Doctor Communis, no.

Some of his ideas were even condemned in 1277, three after his death. A condemnation by the bishop of Oxford was not lifted until 1325, two after his canonisation (though by then it was a dead letter). And his canonisation in no way alters the fact that Aristotle in 1256, when Thomas was still a comparatively young teacher, was still a very dubious character some of whose writings had earlier been condemned.

So the fact that historical criticism is under a cloud for some, and that its practitioners are too, has to be seen in context - it is not the first time that the Church has been very doubtful indeed about an untraditional method, and has then given it room in the Church. St. Thomas looks like a paragon of perfect Catholic orthodoxy, and Father Brown looks like a very dubious character, only because St. Thomas is not seen in his historical setting. If he could disagree with the Fathers - but always with the great respect that is so characteristic of his writing - why may not theologians and Biblical scholars differ from him and them ? There is is nothing captious or disrespectful or trivial-minded in doing so - people disagree with their contemporaries and predecessors for reasons which are often very weighty indeed. The holy immobility some people seem to want in the Church and in theology is a mirage - it never existed, not in St. Jerome’s time, not in St. Thomas’ time, any more than now. And thank God for that.

Thomas was no more special or authoritative in his own time or for many after his death than Father Brown is now. St.Thomas did not go round in a halo He was a theology professor (like not a few other Dominican friars); he was not the only theology professor of his time to be come a Doctor - so has St. Bonaventure; and although he was certainly a distinguished theologian (again, like Father Brown), his was not the only method allowed or allowable. He was out of the ordinary only in this one respect: he was a saint. And the Church needs scholar-saints as much as ever. ##

Two points: 1. Believe me, Brown is no saint Thomas Aquinas. 2. When they CANONIZE Brown and declare him a DOCTOR of the Church, then we can put hin par on par a little bit lower than Aquinas.