The Fall of mankind: inevitable part of God’s plan or unexplainable mystery of faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Giovonni
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is beautiful - everything was good and they had it all. But, the serpent that was evil came to Eve saying, “see that tree, that one has the fruit of good and evil. If you have of it, you will be like God and know everything; then you can be God”. This is the trap that still exists for man today. God created and commands, and because He so ordered that mankind could choose to love and obey Him, it didn’t get past the both of them. Such was the way of everyone afterward.

If we dwell on how could this have been changed or altered so that only the good prevails, we are trying to figure out the knowledge of God. We are NOT going to know what God knows, knew, thought, etc. We have been created and we need to choose to know, love and serve God in this life in order to be with Him in the next. End of story.

The best background we can imagine without exceeding our ability is the story of Creation with the Heavens, the Angels and the rebellion led by Satan. So it seems that is where the serpent in the garden came from. We can’t go any further than that. It is a story that we can understand and accept. God is God, always was, always is and will be. We are not in control of any aspect of our creation and will know only what God decides to let us know about the how and why.

More than this makes my head hurt. 😉
 
Abu said:
That is the sort of sophistry in which Fr Brown was steeped.
Click to expand...
No, not sophistry, and you are still wrong. Fr. Brown’s books carry the Imprimatur, the final approval.

"In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective…The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favorable declaration (known as a nihil obstat) by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy, and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would “harm correct faith or good morals.”

No one has ever given one of Fr. Brown’s books a Imprimi Potest.

How do you explain the fact that all of Fr. Brown’s books carry the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur? It states in the book that they are free from any doctrinal errors. They don’t carry an Imprimi Potest.

And here is a definition:

“Imprimi potest (Latin for “it can be printed”) is a declaration by a major superior of a Roman Catholic religious institute that writings on questions of religion or morals by a member of the institute may be printed. Superiors make such declarations only after censors charged with examining the writings have granted the nihil obstat, a declaration of no objection. Final approval can then be given through the imprimatur (“let it be printed”) of the author’s bishop or of the bishop of the place of publication.”

Fr. Brown’s books carry the Imprimatur, final approval.

All of the major schools, Franciscan, Catholic University of America, Notre Dame, Ave Maria, St. Joseph’s, etc. use Fr. Brown’s textbooks in their theology programs. Do you believe they are all teaching heresy?

And how do you, yourself, explain the vast differences in the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke?
 
clem456 said:
One must weigh the various opinions for sure
Click to expand...
True, Clem. For me that scale tips because I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. That, for me, is all I need to believe he was, indeed, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
 
Lily Bernans #140
And how do you, yourself, explain the vast differences in the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke?
Click to expand...
Faithful lay Catholics rely on the faithful biblical scholars to provide the background for the Church’s teaching, not on their own interpretations. We have seen how misguided selfists can trash the meaning.

REGARDING FATHER RAYMOND BROWN’S CRITIQUE OF MATTHEW 22
By Msgr. John F. McCarthy
“201. True historians do not assume in advance what could have taken place and what could not have taken place, using rationalism as the basis of their judgments. Rather they use the instruments of their profession to determine what did take place, and, if what took place was miraculous, they accept it as miraculous. Catholic form-critics do not deny categorically that miracles could have taken place, but **their method tempts them to deny miracles wherever Catholic dogma does not forbid, and always to retain a measure of doubt regarding the rest. True historians do not, like form-critics, deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the basis of an unproved assumption that Jesus must have been born in Nazareth. When true historians read a sober account like that of Matthew’s Gospel, they do not assume, using weak plausibilities to justify their assumption, that he made up events to smooth out his story; they need historical evidence which, in fact, is not there. A fundamental mistake that Catholic form-critics almost universally tend to make is that they do not attempt to show concretely and with respect to the particular passages that they are analyzing how their conclusions as Catholic form-critics do not carry with them the rationalist presuppositions of the method. **If the first two chapters of Matthew are adjudged to present a complex of imaginative stories, what does this judgment do to Christian faith? How can a Catholic accept that these episodes regarding the early childhood of Jesus are imaginary, and that Christians could blithely fabricate such accounts as though they were true without being liars and deceivers? Catholic form-critics like Father Raymond Brown do not say that the composers of these stories were liars and deceivers, but neither do they squarely face the implications of their conclusions and provide adequate answers.” [My emphasis].
rtforum.org/study/lesson26.html

Thus Fr Brown’s infancy narrative meanderings are totally inadequate.
 
Okay, you don’'t like him. It doesn’t matter. No one is universally liked, but his books are fine for any Catholic to read, or they would not carry the Imprimatur.

I don’t like Richard Rohr’s books and was shocked when a nun who is a friend told me he was her favorite author.

We all have different tastes. No big deal as long as the books carry the Imprimatur.

I don’t know of any theologian who is not controversial. 🤷
 
Lily Bernans #144
his books are fine for any Catholic to read, or they would not carry the Imprimatur
Click to expand...
.
We have already seen that this is not impeccable – take heed.

We have seen how mesmerised some were by Brown. Cardinal Mahony was criticised heavily for Gather Together Faithfully and previous to this for giving his Imprimatur to an absurdity called Benzinger Family Life Series which is loaded with an anti-catholic feminist view of God, Church and Family.

The failed, disgraceful Renew program had an Imprimatur. – that of the archbishop of Newark, N.J… Theodore E. McCarrick. It victimised many. Brown could apparently issue a Nihil obstat himself, and he did so with many of his own works such as in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. The Imprimatur is not infallible, and its grant may be influenced by other considerations on occasion, as shown. Many excellent works do not have an Imprimatur.

Where laxity reigns the Imprimatur is worthless.
 
OneSheep said:
You are so dear, simpleas! Bless you too! I know, “dear” sounds a bit old-fashioned across the pond, but maybe I am old fashioned. 🙂

Yeah, how can a person who knows nothing but mistreatment know God? Actually, I think that it is still quite possible to know what love is in any set of experiences, but the blind do lead people to blindness, so people can certainly grow up with a very limited knowing of where God is present. My wife, who teaches kindergarten, did a lesson on racism in honor of Martin Luther King yesterday, giving only kids with blue shirts a treat (and everyone else, after the discussion), . It was amazing to her (and me) what came out of those children’s mouths about what racial group their parents hate. 5-year-olds have no “filter” my wife says.

Yes, we need healing, we need our eyes healed. Does God ever punish us, or do we simply experience natural consequences for our actions? Our consciences punish us, for sure… there I go again. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw from a TV show here that children just say it as it is, but each are very different as you probably know.

I think we can think that God is punishing us and maybe not even for our action but for what someone else does to us. Although if hell is a reality after death, then punishment still awaits…

No problem in calling me dear, or so dear, my old boss used to ask me “how are you ME dear” it started from a co worker who lived down south, she would always say ME dear with her southern country accent, we all picked it up, even me.

Have a nice day…ME dear 👍
 
Abu said:
Faithful lay Catholics rely on the faithful biblical scholars to provide the background for the Church’s teaching, not on their own interpretations. We have seen how misguided selfists can trash the meaning.

REGARDING FATHER RAYMOND BROWN’S CRITIQUE OF MATTHEW 22
By Msgr. John F. McCarthy
“201. True historians do not assume in advance what could have taken place and what could not have taken place, using rationalism as the basis of their judgments. Rather they use the instruments of their profession to determine what did take place, and, if what took place was miraculous, they accept it as miraculous. Catholic form-critics do not deny categorically that miracles could have taken place, but **their method tempts them to deny miracles wherever Catholic dogma does not forbid, and always to retain a measure of doubt regarding the rest. True historians do not, like form-critics, deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the basis of an unproved assumption that Jesus must have been born in Nazareth. When true historians read a sober account like that of Matthew’s Gospel, they do not assume, using weak plausibilities to justify their assumption, that he made up events to smooth out his story; they need historical evidence which, in fact, is not there. A fundamental mistake that Catholic form-critics almost universally tend to make is that they do not attempt to show concretely and with respect to the particular passages that they are analyzing how their conclusions as Catholic form-critics do not carry with them the rationalist presuppositions of the method. **If the first two chapters of Matthew are adjudged to present a complex of imaginative stories, what does this judgment do to Christian faith? How can a Catholic accept that these episodes regarding the early childhood of Jesus are imaginary, and that Christians could blithely fabricate such accounts as though they were true without being liars and deceivers? Catholic form-critics like Father Raymond Brown do not say that the composers of these stories were liars and deceivers, but neither do they squarely face the implications of their conclusions and provide adequate answers.” [My emphasis].
rtforum.org/study/lesson26.html

Thus Fr Brown’s infancy narrative meanderings are totally inadequate.

The “ignorance” and “error” of Christ
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12-29-2001 (EWTN):
‘The late Fr. Raymond Brown was convinced of ignorance and error on the part of Jesus Christ and the Sacred Scriptures. Here follows a small sampling of texts taken from Fr. Brown’s own works. To these texts could be added many more. I leave it to the reader to decide in the case of Fr. Brown, but personally, I find some of his operating principals and assumptions unacceptable, which puts at risk much of what he has written.
Click to expand...
Hi Abu,

Just an observer’s question: Did Fr. Jon Echert and Msgr. John F. McCarthy’s criticism of Fr. Brown also receive imprimaturs?

Thanks.
 
The popes have not named Brown, but corrected his errors.

Two examples:
Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections, 1970:
“The presbyter-bishops described in the New Testament were not in any traceable way the successors of the Twelve Apostles…They succeeded in the sense that they came later.” (p 72-3).
ITC 1974: 1.“Whatever the method by which they (presbyteroi-episcopoi) are chosen, whether through the authority of the Twelve or Paul or some link with them, they share in the authority of the apostles who were instituted by Christ…”

Brown, “…according to New testament thought there can be no successors to the Twelve as such” (p 55)
**ITC 1974: 5. **“Apostolic succession became the permanent ground from which the Catholic Church understood its own nature.”
  1. “Prolongation of the work of Christ and of His Spirit gives apostolic succession its distinctive character and makes Magisterium distinct from both the teaching authority of scholars and authoritarian power.”
    (ITC numbering from The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr Kelly, p 80)
Still, some have not a clue that Brown overrides papal and Council teaching!

The great biblical encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII (1893) and Divino afflante Spiritu of Pius XII (1943) plainly rule out Scriptural errors in matters of science and history or any other matters.

The teaching of Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum, 11, is in complete harmony with the traditional Catholic understanding of the revealed truth that the books of Scripture are inspired by God and free from all error yet Fr Brown states that Vatican II “reversed” the traditional understanding of Scripture as being inerrant on all subjects!
 
Abu said:
The popes have not named Brown, but corrected his errors.

Two examples:
Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections, 1970:
“The presbyter-bishops described in the New Testament were not in any traceable way the successors of the Twelve Apostles…They succeeded in the sense that they came later.” (p 72-3).
ITC 1974: 1.“Whatever the method by which they (presbyteroi-episcopoi) are chosen, whether through the authority of the Twelve or Paul or some link with them, they share in the authority of the apostles who were instituted by Christ…”

Brown, “…according to New testament thought there can be no successors to the Twelve as such” (p 55)
**ITC 1974: 5. **“Apostolic succession became the permanent ground from which the Catholic Church understood its own nature.”
  1. “Prolongation of the work of Christ and of His Spirit gives apostolic succession its distinctive character and makes Magisterium distinct from both the teaching authority of scholars and authoritarian power.”
    (ITC numbering from The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr Kelly, p 80)
Still, some have not a clue that Brown overrides papal and Council teaching!

The great biblical encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII (1893) and Divino afflante Spiritu of Pius XII (1943) plainly rule out Scriptural errors in matters of science and history or any other matters.

The teaching of Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum, 11, is in complete harmony with the traditional Catholic understanding of the revealed truth that the books of Scripture are inspired by God and free from all error yet Fr Brown states that Vatican II “reversed” the traditional understanding of Scripture as being inerrant on all subjects!
Click to expand...
It seems to me that these statements by Fr. Brown do not necessarily conflict with the ITC. There is much to be explained in the “as such” part of his statement, which is understandably pulled out of context. We have no reason, based on your quotes from Fr. Brown, to do anything less than respect the authority of the Catholic hierarchy regardless of “succession”.

I am assuming that the critiques you mentioned previously did not receive the imprimatur, so I feel a bit relieved that writings that appear somewhat uncharitable, and do not appear to give Fr. Brown the benefit of the doubt, did not receive the same blessings as Fr. Brown’s writings. You certainly would not be saying that writings that receive an imprimatur are to be held as less valuable than those writings that criticize without such designation, correct?

Otherwise, we are saying that imprimatur or no imprimatur, it’s all just a matter of whose opinion we like better, right? Or what we are willing to accept as possibilities?

It’s a big Church, Abu, plenty of room for varying opinions. 🙂
 
OneSheep #149
It’s a big Church, Abu, plenty of room for varying opinions.
Click to expand...
False when it comes to doctrine.

Everyone is obligated to judge Brown’s writing and actions against the truths of faith as Lawrence Cardinal Sheehan has done. That’s why we need to see the facts.

His Cardinal exposes major errors of Brown

Cdl Sheehan exposed 5 of Brown’s errors (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Nov 1975, p 10-23).

Error 1. Brown says no individual is ever specifically identified as a priest in the NT.
Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s *The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers *as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. “The absence of the use of the one term *hierus *is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].
**
Error 2. **Brown can only say of the Eucharist as a sacrifice in the NT that the Pauline text has “sacrificial overtones.”
Cdl Sheehan asks why has Brown evaded 1 Cor 10:14-21 warning against idolatrous sacrificial feasts and specifically recommending “sharing at the table of the Lord” and communion with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Error 3. Brown claims that the apostles were priests “is based upon a serious oversimplification about the apostles in the NT.”
Cdl Sheehan having shown already that they were priests says “Instead of the Church actually established by Christ, he proposes a Church which stemmed from Christ.” In place of the Eucharistic sacrifice “actually instituted by Christ, he proposes a sacrifice and a priesthood which gradually emerged some 70 years after” the resurrection of Jesus. – “a far more serious real oversimplification” with no scriptural basis.

Error 4. Brown claims that Christ did not intend Christianity to be a new religion.
Cdl Sheehan shows that St Paul taught that the Church is Christ’s Body (1 Cor6, 10, and Rom 12), the basis of the Church’s teaching on the priesthood and as expressed in Trent.

Error 5. Are Brown’s errors important to Christ’s Church?
Cdl Sheehan answers Yes! For truth. If not deemed necessary by Christ, why should a priesthood be necessary now? Brown omits Romans 15:15-16 on a priest of Jesus Christ, and 1 Cor 10:14-22 on the Eucharist’s sacrificial nature, and he deemphasises this again in 1 Cor 11:23-29.
Further he denigrates the credibility of Christ’s Church that teaches that the priesthood was established by Christ.

No wonder there is a crisis in the Church with so many dissenters, including Brown, all having created doubt and confusion.
 
To call Fr. Brown a dissenter is going a bit too far. He has stated publicly that he, personally, believes what the Magisterium teaches. To question what we don’t know is fine. If theologians never questioned, no one would ever learn.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
To call Fr. Brown a dissenter is going a bit too far. He has stated publicly that he, personally, believes what the Magisterium teaches. To question what we don’t know is fine. If theologians never questioned, no one would ever learn.
Click to expand...
I think we need to follow the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the Gospels; the Old and the New Testament according to the teachings of His Holy Church. Otherwise - if we depended on theologians at large, what we would learn could be wrong. Theologians - that is a loose group of people discussing God and His plan for us. Its back to the Fall of mankind - wanting to have the knowledge of God. We need to have knowledge provided to us through the Holy Spirit - there is a limit to our human interest IMO.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Well, I’ll admit, I’m far more partial to the gospels of Mark and John than Matthew and Luke.

The Bible was never meant to be a history book. I don’t think many people believe Jonah spent time in the belly of a fish or that it took days to walk across Nineveh.

Biblical scholars agree that Mark’s gospel was the first one written. Notice it contains no nativity story. I think the early Church was focused on the Resurrection because unless the Resurrection did occur, Christianity is a sham. As time went on, however, I think people became more and more interested in the earthly life of Christ. They wanted to know more about him. And I believed members of the early Church began to comb through the Hebrew Scriptures looking for prophecies of the Messiah. They came upon the one in Micah that said the Messiah would be born in the City of David, i.e. Bethlehem. So, Matthew and Luke, in my opinion, performed some literary acrobatics to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no known tax at the time of Jesus’ birth, and had there been,. people paid the tax where they lived, not where they were born. And even if they had to pay where they were born, only Joseph would have had to go, not Mary. It’s not believable that a heavily pregnant Mary would have traveled about 100 miles across the desert, which abounded with thieves at night, when she was so close to giving birth to the Son of God. I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion, but I, personally, believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth. John’s gospel, and John was part of Christ’s inner circle, was written last. John, like Mark, includes no nativity.

In the end, I don’t think it matters where Jesus was born. What matters is whether or not he was resurrected from the dead, and I definitely believe he was. Nothing else can account for the changed life of the apostles. After Christ’s arrest, they hid in fear, afraid that they, too, would be arrested and crucified. Only John stood at the foot of the Cross. After the Resurrection, however, the apostles traveled and proclaimed the gospel to all who would listen, and with the exception of John, they were martyred. Why would they be martyred for a lie? They made no money. They were persecuted. Nothing of personal good came to them from their preaching.

If they had made up the Resurrection, they would have done a better job of it. Why have a Savior of the world who was so afraid he sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why have the women be the first to discover that Jesus had been raised? Women had no more standing in first century Palestine than slaves.

There is a book that might clear up some things for you, and please know I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, either. The book, if you are interested, is The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.

I believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but not history or science, etc. I don’t expect any nativity displays to change, either. In the end, Bethlehem is the only data we have, so we might as well conduct our Christmas pageants and carols around that.

Note: I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone about this, no matter what their opinion. I respect other opinions, and we’ve discussed this before. I believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on this matter.
Click to expand...
You say that the Bible is not history, and yet you’re accepting the Gospels as history. You’re sliding down the slippery slope
 
grotto said:
I think we need to follow the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the Gospels; the Old and the New Testament according to the teachings of His Holy Church. Otherwise - if we depended on theologians at large, what we would learn could be wrong. Theologians - that is a loose group of people discussing God and His plan for us. Its back to the Fall of mankind - wanting to have the knowledge of God. We need to have knowledge provided to us through the Holy Spirit - there is a limit to our human interest IMO.
Click to expand...
Well, I do agree with what you say. I depend on the Magisterium. I take the various theologians with a grain of salt as food for thought and the basis of conversations with my fellow teachers. And I agree that there is a limit to human knowledge.

I think your post sums it up nicely. Thank you.
 
It is suggested that if one has a weak faith they should not read Raymond E Brown . If you define weak as not having a good foundation than weak might be accurate. Those who read his works without a good foundation will come away believing that Matthew and Luke made up the nativity, Jesus wasn’t born in Bethelehem of a virgin, they will believe that Jesus is not God, They will deny that Jesus was sacriced on the cross and that He rose from the dead. They will not understand that what Brown writes is simply a theory not to be mixed up with fact. Raymond E. Brown Priest The nil obstate is much more complicated than has been presented. What it doesn’t do is guarntee that there are no errors or that everything is true and factual. This will present an interesting view of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
We assume that our bishops act in good faith when they grant permission for a book to be published. Most go to great lengths to insure that no imprimatur is granted when one should not be. At the same time, there are several reasons why a Catholic would still want to carefully evaluate a publication bearing the nihil obstat and imprimatur:
Click to expand...
Something else I found interesting was that for some works Fr. Raymond Brown gave himself an imprimatur:rolleyes:
 
adrift said:
Something else I found interesting was that for some works Fr. Raymond Brown gave himself an imprimatur:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Which ones? Since you found it, you should let us know. The school library has all his books, and I’d like to look them up. Even if I’m not at school, I can look online.

But, if the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are meaningless, what does it matter? 🤷
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Which ones? Since you found it, you should let us know. The school library has all his books, and I’d like to look them up. Even if I’m not at school, I can look online.

But, if the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are meaningless, what does it matter? 🤷
Click to expand...
The NJBC has both the imprimatur and the nihil obstat. The actual declaration that the book is free of doctrinal or moral errors, was given by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, the three editors of the NJBC itself. They were the censores deputati, the delegated censors, who gave the OK before the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington gave his imprimatur.
 
adrift said:
The NJBC has both the imprimatur and the nihil obstat. The actual declaration that the book is free of doctrinal or moral errors, was given by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, the three editors of the NJBC itself. They were the censores deputati, the delegated censors, who gave the OK before the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington gave his imprimatur.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I used that book in almost all my scripture classes at school. As a student, I mean. As both an undergraduate and graduate student.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top