Raymond Brown???

[BibleReader]

Hi, Dave.

An example of a reason why we should tread lightly in this area, without getting too doctrinaire or throwing anathemas too energetically at the likes of non-professional theologians like me or extraordinarily-well-educated commentators like Fr. Brown, is this…

Up above you ceremoniously invoked the magisterial teaching that “SCRIPTURE IS WITHOUT ERROR” and “LET HIM WHO SAYS THAT SCRIPTURE HAS ERRORS BE ANATHEMA.”

Well, good enough. To a certain extent, Scripture has God as its author. Therefore, at least in certain respects, it must be “error-free.” God is error-free. His work must be error-free. That is a very fine and satisfactory truism, right? Why would anyone disagree with it? OF COURSE Scripture is “error-free”! GOD wrote it!

More to the point, our God-inspired Magisterium says that Scripture is error-free. Therefore it must be error-free.

Additionally, the God-inspired Magisterium, by ratifying the Biblical canon, also makes the Biblical canon its own error-free expression of its God-inspired self.

I’m not making fun, here. What I’ve just said amounts to the teaching of our Church about Scripture.

Now, here is why I set all of that out, so deliberately…

The Magisterium has taught on several occasions that Mary was a virgin in partu. Now, you and I know what this means: The Magisterium, in saying this, was not addressing itself to folks who think that Mary had sex with someone. Instead, the Magisterium was addressing itself to those who assert that Jesus’ birth was normal, characterized by the normal breaking of tissues, release of amniotic fluid, release of blood, etc. The Magisterium, by saying that Mary was a virgin in partu, is saying, in effect “There was no flow of blood.”

So, if I posted here, “There was a flow of blood when Jesus was born,” you would respond, “Wrong. The Magisterium has taught that Mary was a virgin in partu – even in the act of giving birth. You are bound by that teaching, since the inspired Magisterium taught that.” And then you can give the chapter and verse of any one of the various Magisterial decrees establishing this dogma.

Problem: The inspired, error-free Bible, ratified by the same inspired Magisterium, seems to squarely disagree with the in partu teaching. The inspired Magisterium says that inspired, error-free Luke 2:22-24 says,

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem … to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

So, the translators of the inspired Magisterium tell us that the inspired, error-free Bible says that the law of the Lord “dictated” that they “offer the sacrifice of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.’”

So, when does the law of the Lord dictate this?

The answer is the problem that arises when you tell the Fr. Brown’s of the world that they are bad Bible commentators, or this person or that person is “anathema.”

The answer is Leviticus 12:7-8. The answer is that the law dictates that these things be done WHEN THERE IS A “FLOW OF BLOOD,” PRECISELY CONTRARY TO THE IN PARTU DOGMA.

And it isn’t just one, possibly-misunderstood verse. Luke uses exactly the same two Greek terms to describe Mary giving birth that he uses to describe Elizabeth giving birth, *tikto *and gennao.

Tikto is the Greek term describing a woman being in labor. It is the Greek term used to describe the woman giving birth in great pain in Revelation 12…the woman wailing aloud in pain to give birth.

Additionally, Matthew’s Gospel says that Jesus was a “king,” and Wisdom 7:5-6 tells us that “no king has any different origin or birth; but one [same way] is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it.”

Therefore, the appearance is that the inspired Magisterium, which declares that the inspired Bible is error-free, and anathematizes those who say otherwise, disagrees with the Bible on Mary’s in partu virginity.

Where this is the sort of thing confronting Bible commentators, anathema throwers and Raymond Brown critics like yourself should tread very, very, very lightly, with the utmost humility and respect.

 

[BibleReader]

Here is another example of the problems confronting Bible commentators, Dave…

You kind of sit behind the sandbags of blind obedience to the Church’s declarations, firing anathemas out like a sniper at anyone who dares to show his face, intoning error-free Magisterial declations that Scripture is error-free, and then invoking anathemas against those who deny this.

And then the Father Brown’s of the world, after folks like you add to the momentum of such Church declarations by invoking them and reminding those who disagree that they are anathematized, must confront confront problems like this:

LUKE’S inspired narrative of Paul’s conversion says, “**7 **The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one,” Acts 9:7.

LUKE’S INSPIRED NARRATIVE OF INSPIRED PAUL’S WORDS say, “’**9 **My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.’” Acts 22:9.

Now, it appears ineluctably certain that one of these verses is an error, or else that Paul was lying. The Father Brown’s of the world think, “The Magisterium says that the Bible is without error. This appears to be a very plain, obvious error. What do I think???”

How do you respond to questions about those verses by Fr. Brown? Negatively criticize him, as you do?

Or, could it be that, in talking about Scripture, and in attacking theologians like Fr. Brown who comment on Scripture, we should tread very, very, verly lightly, and with enormous humility and greatest respect?

I choose the latter.

God bless Fr. Brown.

Life is not simple. Scripture is not simple. Theology is not simple.

 

[serendipity]

CharlesT:

BTW, why do you suppose that the Holy Father or someone in authority in Rome doesn’t condemn what you call FATHER Brown’s “serious deficiencies?”

Not only was he not condemned, but his scholarship was honored. He was twice appointed as a mmebre to the Pontifical Biblical Commissions, in 1972, and in 1996 (which means two different Popes valued his interpretations). From 1972-78 he was the only American given this honor. I don’t know about the second term, but for me that speaks volumes about the quality of his research.

Which is not to say that he was perfect. It seems that too many people expect books on Biblical criticism to be as inerrant as the Bible itself. Trends in research som times provide new insight or access to different information. One can only hope that analysis ability gets better over time and innovation, and a good scholar has the grace to admit when new appraoches may be more accurate than what they traditionally accepted, Brown has demonstrated the grace to do that. Personally, I enjoy Brown’s perspective, but it’s not the only perspective I look at.

It seems like the different opinions people have of of Raymond Brown correlate much to their atitude towards what role theology and acamdemia should have in religion. Should the people be encouraged to think by allowing them to see reasearch in theology and reviews of ideas that are not unenimously accepted by all members of the magisterium? Or should work only be published if it supports the way that the current status quo is articulated?

Almighty God, help us to be disciples of your Son. If we are struggling with faith and doubting whether we should believe, overcome our obstacles. If we believe, strengthen our faith when it is tested by the difficulties of life. And as we face the specter of death, grant us the grace to see that already we possess your life that death cannot touch.
—from A Retreat With John the Evangelist:
That You May Have Life the last book written by Raymond E. Brown

 

[whosebob]

BibleReader:

. . . LUKE’S inspired narrative of Paul’s conversion says, “**7 **The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one,” Acts 9:7.

LUKE’S INSPIRED NARRATIVE OF INSPIRED PAUL’S WORDS say, “’**9 **My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.’” Acts 22:9.

Now, it appears ineluctably certain that one of these verses is an error, or else that Paul was lying.

JMJ + OBT​

Dear BibleReader,

I think your concerns and/or fears are a bit unfounded:

Since it is rather likely (cf. Acts 8:1-3 and 9:1) that Paul’s journey to Damascus to arrest Christians was about the same time as the stoning of Stephen, it is probable that his conversion also came in 36 A.D. His conversion is told in three places in Acts: 9:3-19; 22:6-16 and 26:12-18. The first time is part of the narrative; the second and third are from speeches Paul gave later. Strangely, some cannot find the explanation for what they call contradictions: 9:7 says those with him heard the voice but saw no one, while 22:9 says they saws the light but did not hear the voice. The solution is easy: Greek akouein, to hear, has a broad span of meaning (so does English listen). It can mean either to merely perceive a sound, or to also understand it. Secondly, 26:14 says we all fell to the ground; while 9:7 says his companions stood amazed. Totally easy! They did fall first, then soon scrambled to their feet, and stood amazed.
(Fr. Most, The Thought of St. Paul: Commentary on the Pauline Epistles)

There is also a simple solution to your concerns about Mary’s purification, but I encourage you to think about it a bit more. Compare and contrast it with Jesus’ circumcision and also His baptism in the Jordan.

By the way, I am not “Dave.”

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[BibleReader]

So that the folks here know whom I am addressing, I’ll call you by your handle then, itsjustDave 1988, if you don’t like “Dave.”

The Greek term used for “hear” in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is the same in each case, except the latter is clearly negativized in the text.

Note that, in effect, after you say that one is “anathema” if one maintains that Scripture can err, you add in your last comment in this thread that functionally the Greek in Scripture is so loosey-goosey and so slippery in meaning that, in practice, “no” (as in “didn’t hear”) can mean “yes” (as in “did hear”).

So, you escape the dilemma posed by your absolutist reliance on a radically-platonized concept, “Scripture can not err,” by reducing the meaning of suspect Bible words to unreliable objective nonsense, so that, every time someone comes up with a contradiction, you’ll simply reverse one of the meanings, and then declare your listener “anathema”!

We lawyers call this, “The Game of Coming and Going.” In effect, your analysis reduces Scripture to the same level as the game of deception played by dishonest lawyers at trial.

Since you have hidden within your “anathema” a presumption that you, the anathema thrower, have a right to play “Coming and Going,” communication with you is too uncertain, and therefore worthless.

Since we can’t reliably test truth with you, why should we bother talking to you? You will simply always win, because it is predictable that you will always play “Coming and Going.” You’ll *always *have a “coming and going” card up your sleeve.

Note that Luke 2:22-24 is written in same Greek language which you treat as slippery, sloppy, undefinable, “yes-can-mean-no,” reducing the Bible’s advice, and the Church’s reliance on the Bible’s advice, to objective worthlessness. So, why should we also bother listening to the Magisterium’s rekliance on Scripture, since “yes” can mean “no”?

Another question: What is the difference between your position, that a Greek affirmation in Scripture may actually be precisely the opposite, and Father Brown’s or mine, the folks you throw anathemas at?

 

[BibleReader]

Another question, it’sjustdave 1988:

Whose position really – *really *-- has more respect for Scripture?

Yours, where you assign a radically-platonized, absolutist meaning to Church declarations condemning those who maintain that Scripture can err, and then claim that the Greek “no” in Scripture (as in “did NOT hear”) can mean “yes” (as in “DID hear”) to get off the hot seat when your own radical, judgmental platonization generates a problem?

Or mine, where I believe that “yes” in Greek means “yes” and “no” in Greek means “no,” so that there is a problem which we need to patiently and lovingly talk about?

In my opinion, friend, you don’t respect Scripture. For you Scripture is “putty in your hands,” to be molded and interpreted however necessary to fit the non-infallible Magisterial teaching of the moment on the meaning of Scripture.

Don’t forget that Scripture itself is an expression of the Magisterium. When you pretend that “yes” can mean “no” in Scriptural Greek, you are reducing the Magisterium’s canon to nonsense.

 

[BibleReader]

I just changed computers and formats, and I see that I did mistake “whosebob” as “it’sjustdave 1988.” Sorry.

Hi, whosebob. Please regard the last two posts, above, as having been addressed to you.

In my opinion, “backing-into” apparent reversals of the meaning of Scripture to avoid generating uncomfortable contradictions is an impermissible tool of Biblical interpretation.

For that reason, I think that Acts 9:7 and 22:9 simply squarely contradict one another, and one of them is in error.

I think that it is outside the range of the “Scripture doesn’t err” penumbra – it might be a copyist’s error, or Paul might have erred and Luke accurately recorded the error.

In other words, what Paul’s companions heard is not sufficiently a matter of faith or morals to merit divine protection against error.

I think that whether Mary bled is a matter of faith and morals, and that Scripture repeatedly assures us that she did, and that the Magisterium erred, the same way the Magisterium erred when Liberius partially opposed Athanasius on Arianism, and then Liberius subsequently condemned his own statement on Arianism.

 

[CharlesT]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear CharlesT,

There has been such a flurry of activity in this thread, you may not have seen the following post, which I contributed a couple of days ago, and the one immediately below it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=431284#post431284

Or, you may have chosen to ignore it. In any case, in light of the statements you just made, I kindly ask you to consider and respond specifically to the references I’ve provided, as I believe they are precise examples of the “teaching” and “conclusions” of Fr. Brown which many of us object to so strongly.

Thank you.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Whosebob,

With respect, I think the differences between us lie in different approaches to and understanding of the nature of the Scriptures.

I don’t think I’m going to change your mind about this by debating specific passages, and I’m pretty sure you won’t change mine.

I respect your view, and I apologize if I’ve offended you.

My main point in this thread has been that the Church has kept a place open for both of us and both our understandings in this matter.

Best wishes.

 

[philipmarus]

I’ve been absent from this thread for awhile because I perceived it getting a little too polemical for my taste. However, I been having second thoughts about Raymond Brown. I go on record as Catholic who accepts all the teachings of the Magisterium. I admit that I am little suspicious when Brown seems to cast doubt on the infancy narratives or the like. I’m particularly sensitive to modern criticisms that seem to especially undermine Catholic traditional interpretations of certain scriptures even by Catholic exegetes. I once read a book review on Amazon of a Catholic Apologetic work by a non-catholic. The reviewer relied on Father Brown to show that “even conservative Catholic Biblical exegetes” today have questioned the scriptural basis of dogmas like the perpetual virginity of Virgin Mary. I find it amusing from reading book reviews that some liberals (from what I can tell) refer to Brown as a conservative and yet more conservatives cast Brown as a liberal scholar. However, I have been thinking recently that Rev. Brown approach may provide an effective antidote to fundamentalist reading of the Bible which often ignores the historical and cultural context when the biblical documents were written. There’s a tendency in some circles to revere the documents of scripture so much as to forget they were historical documents written by men of particular time and culture although innspired by the Holy Spirit. I know certain Fundamentalists that will take “Fruit of the Vine” as just that and consider wine inherently sinful. They will never consider what Fruit of the vine meant in the time of Jesus. Another example is with the rapture where 1 Thess 4:15 refers to coming of Jesus in glory and the believers will be “caught up in the clouds”. Do we take this literally? Do Historical-Criticism and Brown help any in this regard?

 

[O.S.Luke]

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

It’s “Protestant.” Capital P.

Somewhere here, someone said that Ray Brown graduated from a Protestant seminary. This is not true: He received a BA from Catholic University of America in 1948, and an MA in 1949. In 1951 he joined the Society of Saint-Sulpice, and received the STB degree from St Mary’s Seminary and University.

Pope Benedict XVI evidently thought highly of Brown and his scholarship, even though he disagreed with it at times - he was quoted as saying that he “would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown” [Francis J Moloney, *The Legacy of Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Liturgical Press, 2005, p251, footnote quoting Origins, 17/35, (February 11, 1988), p.595.].

Some of biblical scholarship is to present evidence that needs refuting. Otherwise, we are reduced to reckless fundamentalism. Do y’all really want to act like Fundamentalist Protestants?

 

[RobbyS]

From the article I cited above:

Fr. Raymond Brown argues that Jesus only intended to renew Israel,but not to found a Church. “The older blueprint supposition by which Jesus had the Church clearly in mind and had already planned its structure, sacraments, etc., has little or no textual support…” What of our Lord’s famous words to St. Peter,declaring him the rock on which He would build His Church, and promising that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? This doesn’t impress Raymond Brown, who calmly assures his readers that this and other passages to which appeal may be made “. . . have no parallel in the other Gospels and probably represent post-resurrectional understandings specifying Jesus’ intentions.” To translate: Jesus didn’t say these things; they were invented afterward and don’t represent what He intended

Whats misunderstood?

There’s an article by Msgr. George Kelly (link below) which relates Rev. Brown’s conclusion that “the stories of Christ’s birth are dubious history”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html

Brown was too attached to modern Biblical scholarship which, unfortunately, places the scholar outside the Faith, and as R. Reno says in this month’s*** First Things,*** seeks to master the Scriptures rather than be mastered by them. I think we ought to treat modern Biblicals scholars as technicians: useful for their mastery of details but not to tell us about Christ.

 

[lweisenthal]

In my opinion, some orthodox Catholics have been unfair in their assessments of Fr. Brown. He was a scholar. In his role as a scholar, he tried to be objective in his scholarship – as in the case of a neutral umpire, calling “balls and strikes.” He did not pursue his scholarship with a heavy thumb on the scale of classic orthodoxy, i.e. he did not contort the “data” to fit into Church teachings. However, his works received official imprimaturs, certifying that they were free from doctrinal errors. This is because he did not challenge Church teachings, instead he said (accurately) that “scholars believe [thus and so], based on [this and that].” He also offers his own opinions, explaining the basis of these opinions. One is free to accept or reject his arguments.

It must be understood that what he’s doing, as a scholar, is, in effect, trying to isolate the Bible (and historical evidence pertaining to the Bible) from Church traditions and teachings, in order to determine what a theological scholar, working in the 1990s, would logically conclude, simply based on the Bible itself and based on other historical documents. The analogy would be Galileo. Imagine if Galileo had not allowed his own scholarship to lead to conclusions which were contrary to the official Church teachings of the time.

So it is with theology. Theologians have been useful to the Church, throughout its history. The Church is charged with correctly interpreting Scripture in formulating doctrines. It can best do so when it has the results of robust scholarship, as well as divine inspiration, if only, sometimes, for the sake of being challenged with a “Devil’s advocate” point of view. Doubtless, this type of scholarship was of value to Pope Paul VI in writing Humanae Vitae encyclical. A theological scholar who merely regurgitates what might be called conventional wisdom is no scholar at all.

To the best of my knowledge, Brown doesn’t challenge Church dogma or doctrines – at least in his later works (e.g. his classic “Introduction to the New Testament”). He may objectively conclude that the scriptural basis for a certain dogma is very thin, but allows the reader to determine this for himself/herself, by carefully laying out what scripture actually says.

I would strongly recommend (to anyone, but especially to the layperson who wishes to criticize Fr. Brown) the wonderful (and mercifully brief and highly readable) “101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.”

amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0809142511

He covers all the areas in which his works have provoked some controversy outside the academic theological community. I believe that, if one gives Fr. Brown the fair opportunity to “defend” his views, as he essentially does in this most informative little book, one will conclude that not only was Fr. Brown a superb scholar but also that he was in obedience to his Holy Orders vows.

If the reader just has time to read a single excerpt of the above book, I’d recommend the last 4 “questions” (numbers 98 - 101) which is as persuasive a defense of apostolic succession from Peter to present as you will ever read. You will then appreciate the importance of objective scholarship.

One can simply assert the principle of apostolic succession, based on ecclesiastic authority, or one can mount a very shallow defense (e.g. the “rock on which I will build my church” line, which has been challenged by anti-Catholic critics on various grounds for hundreds of years), or one may offer sound and effective arguments, based on objective criteria and dispassionate reasoning, after having first established one’s credibility as an “honest umpire.” The latter approach is, by far, the most persuasive to the minds of those who are most in need of such persuasion.

Brown did God’s work. He also did the Church’s work. In my opinion.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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.

Absolutely!

 

[sirach2v4]

He is not the best. In so much that his ideas aren’t always the most traditional. From what I can recall he doesn’t really go against the magisterium, but the things that we are free to believe differently about, he does just that. I wouldn’t recommend his work for the uneducated. (but that’s not you so go ahead) But there is a lot better stuff out there.

I’ve read only about 20 of the posts and I would like to make what I think are relevant comments on Fr. brown’s writings.

In NJBC, he makes a point that the church has only made official pronouncements on a very few parts of scripture. I think what he’s trying to do is drive a truck through that door with a lot of his own opinions about a lot of scripture; I think he felt that he had a license to do that.

And, if that remark, buried way in the back in the section on official church pronouncements is not declarative enough, maybe you should read his introduction to the NJBC itself. There , he points out that a majority of the original JBC was replaced in this second “new” edition, and he predicted that if anyone would ever attempt to put out a later edition, a lot in the second edition would probably be replaced, too.

And, a third remark he makes somewhere in the introduction is that nobody should take anything in that volume as infallibly established (my words – I can’t remember how he phrased that).

On an intellectual basis, I think he’s conceding that the topics are always open to further investigation and discovery. But, at the same time, he’s staking out challenges to bible investigators of a later timeframe.

More than 10 years ago, I picked up one of his books in our diocesan library. I don’t remember which book. But, I was impressed by the games he played, even quite openly. He wrote three essays, “for,” “against”, and “neutral” on the subject of ordaining women as priests. At the end of the section, he simply posed the rhetorical question, “which position do you thing I favor?”

In NJBC, too, I think there’s too much emphasis on – is it Rudolf (?) Bultmann. He’s the liberal protestant minister who rejected all the miraculous in scripture, asserting that only the “kerygma” should be retained. More specifically, (writing in the early 20th century), he claims that nobody believes the old stories in the bible – that the bible should be “demythologized” and then “remythologized” for our modern times. Having said this, NJBC reported that no one has seriously attempted to do this – perhaps suggesting that this is unfinished business.

As a specific example of something confusing I came across: The discussion of the book of Ruth says that the marriage of Boaz and Ruth WAS a levirate marriage. I picked up the then-newly published Jewish Publication society commentary on Ruth which states emphatically that this marriage was NOT a levirate marriage. I tend to agree with JPS (but I have an open mind).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

NJBC is used in almost every master’s program in theology in the US - at every university - even the only Pontifical College in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In my opinion, some orthodox Catholics have been unfair in their assessments of Fr. Brown. He was a scholar. In his role as a scholar, he tried to be objective in his scholarship – as in the case of a neutral umpire, calling “balls and strikes.” He did not pursue his scholarship with a heavy thumb on the scale of classic orthodoxy, i.e. he did not contort the “data” to fit into Church teachings. However, his works received official imprimaturs, certifying that they were free from doctrinal errors. This is because he did not challenge Church teachings, instead he said (accurately) that “scholars believe [thus and so], based on [this and that].” He also offers his own opinions, explaining the basis of these opinions. One is free to accept or reject his arguments.

It must be understood that what he’s doing, as a scholar, is, in effect, trying to isolate the Bible (and historical evidence pertaining to the Bible) from Church traditions and teachings, in order to determine what a theological scholar, working in the 1990s, would logically conclude, simply based on the Bible itself and based on other historical documents. The analogy would be Galileo. Imagine if Galileo had not allowed his own scholarship to lead to conclusions which were contrary to the official Church teachings of the time.

So it is with theology. Theologians have been useful to the Church, throughout its history. The Church is charged with correctly interpreting Scripture in formulating doctrines. It can best do so when it has the results of robust scholarship, as well as divine inspiration, if only, sometimes, for the sake of being challenged with a “Devil’s advocate” point of view. Doubtless, this type of scholarship was of value to Pope Paul VI in writing Humanae Vitae encyclical. A theological scholar who merely regurgitates what might be called conventional wisdom is no scholar at all.

To the best of my knowledge, Brown doesn’t challenge Church dogma or doctrines – at least in his later works (e.g. his classic “Introduction to the New Testament”). He may objectively conclude that the scriptural basis for a certain dogma is very thin, but allows the reader to determine this for himself/herself, by carefully laying out what scripture actually says.

I would strongly recommend (to anyone, but especially to the layperson who wishes to criticize Fr. Brown) the wonderful (and mercifully brief and highly readable) “101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.”

amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0809142511

He covers all the areas in which his works have provoked some controversy outside the academic theological community. I believe that, if one gives Fr. Brown the fair opportunity to “defend” his views, as he essentially does in this most informative little book, one will conclude that not only was Fr. Brown a superb scholar but also that he was in obedience to his Holy Orders vows.

If the reader just has time to read a single excerpt of the above book, I’d recommend the last 4 “questions” (numbers 98 - 101) which is as persuasive a defense of apostolic succession from Peter to present as you will ever read. You will then appreciate the importance of objective scholarship.

One can simply assert the principle of apostolic succession, based on ecclesiastic authority, or one can mount a very shallow defense (e.g. the “rock on which I will build my church” line, which has been challenged by anti-Catholic critics on various grounds for hundreds of years), or one may offer sound and effective arguments, based on objective criteria and dispassionate reasoning, after having first established one’s credibility as an “honest umpire.” The latter approach is, by far, the most persuasive to the minds of those who are most in need of such persuasion.

Brown did God’s work. He also did the Church’s work. In my opinion.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

An extremely well thought out post.