the five solas unbiblical

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This is borrowed from Pastor William Weedom:
The “Lutheran” Solas in the Fathers of the Church

By William Weedon

Some Fathers on Sola Scriptura:

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

Out of context:
3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all.

hn160:

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

There is no “Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church”. Can you provide the actual title of the document or only provide the title that the pastor invented.

hn160:

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

Again, in its context:
“Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us. Once more, we oppose to this assault our wonted armour of truth, and show that we abhor this form of heresy just as much as Judaism. What then? Are they weary after such efforts, and content to rest? Not at all. Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:— They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Nowhere is Gregory advocating sola scriptura. He is merely saying, “know your audience”.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

hn160:

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

Nowhere does Gregory say that “scripture alone” is the solitary rule to the exception of the Church’s authority. There is no Catholic here that will say that the Scriptures are not authoritative.

Your imposing protestantism onto the text.

hn160:

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

Your source is spurious. There is no such work as “The Morals” that I can find.

hn160:

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

Again, out of context:
What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you. For “the brightness” is always thought of with “the glory,” “the image” with the archetype, (2 Corinthians 4:4) and the Son always and everywhere together with the Father; nor does even the close connection of the names, much less the nature of the things, admit of separation."

None of which says “sola scriptura”. It just says “we follow the Scriptures”. So does the Chruch.

hn160:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Again, it only says that Scripture is authoritative. Nowhere does it say “sola scriptura”.

hn160:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

Again, your source is spurious. I can find no reference that Augustine wrote a work called, “On the Unity of the Church”. Cyprian did, but nowhere does it say anything even close to what you posted.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The above quotes are evidently taken out-of-context as usual by many SS advocates. None of the above ever wrote in defense of SS or advocating it.

How were they taken out of context?

Are you serious? Easily,not ONE church father ever wrote an exhaustive work in defense of Sola Scriptura or advocated it as the ONLY SOURCE for faith and morals. Pastor William simply imposed his biased SS views into the text trying to convey a smoking gun to prove SS. It is the oldest trick in the book by many Protestants when dealing with the ECF’s. Read any church father’s work in their entirety and NONE ever support SS.

 

[child_of_Faith]

This reply is for rinnie. I agree with what you are saying about one having the free will to choose Christ and not sin and I understand that the Apostle Paul says, paraphrasing, that we should not slip back into the clutches of sin because it would be openly putting Christ to shame. However, I am not a Lutheran, but I feel that people view belief that one is saved through the grace of Christ alone as saying that we can merely accept Christ then continue living in sin. But i believe that it is saying that it is only through Christ that we can gain salvation, sure we have to work to choose Christ’s gift of salvation, but it is not our own efforts or merits that brings us salvation for every man is a sinner and none, except Christ, can be justified before God through their own individual efforts… I hope you get this message, but I’ve never had an account before, so I’m not sure how to use it.

 

[Lincoln7]

That’s all very interesting but where are your verses from scripture, that show that scripture says, that scripture is the only or main source of truth for the Christian?

One could provide lots of verses that show the perspicous nature of scripture, ones which demonstrate its nature as God breathed, as if God were heard giving utterance to it, as such it partakes of his authority, it is our surest guide to the apostolic teaching, as such it is authoritative, and that to which teachings are tested.

Are you asking though, that we test the principle that all things must be tested to scripture, by testing it to scripture?

Regards

Lincs

 

[GaryTaylor]

sure we have to work to choose Christ’s gift of salvation, but it is not our own effort.

How does one “work” to choose salvation, but not of your own effort?

Peace

 

[sambos671]

I don’t believe the five solas are grounded in scripture. Before I give my defense, I would be curious to find out what others think. Its interesting to me that historically, and theologically, each of the five is a direct repudiation of a specific catholic doctrine. I will give my evidence later, meanwhile. if ye wish, what say ye?

As with anything you first have to clarify or define what you mean by certain words.

1. By Scripture Alone? No. Catholics believe that Jesus established a church who is authoritative and that the apostles provided the whole deposit of faith which in inclusive of the scriptures. Scriptures alone without an interpreting authority falls flat and people can make of them what ever they wish. However, scriptures in context of what the church has held for millenia in the deposit of faith is good.
2. By Faith alone? Well, the way I see it is that if what you mean by faith includes participation in the divine life through the mysteries and the grace they provide; I don’t see much of a problem. If however, it excludes this participation then no.
3. By Grace alone? Absolutely, God by grace moves us to faith and provides assistance in our participation. Grace provides for our tranformation into the likeness of Christ and justifies us before God.
4. By Christ alone? Absolutely. It is Jesus Christ who saves us. It his merits upon which we rely. We must remain in him so that he will remain in us so that we can participate in his divine life producing the fruit pleasing to the father.
5. To the Glory of God Alone? Sure. We remind ourselves of that every Mass when we say the Sanctus.

 

[submariner2]

As with anything you first have to clarify or define what you mean by certain words.

1. By Scripture Alone? No. Catholics believe that Jesus established a church who is authoritative and that the apostles provided the whole deposit of faith which in inclusive of the scriptures. Scriptures alone without an interpreting authority falls flat and people can make of them what ever they wish. However, scriptures in context of what the church has held for millenia in the deposit of faith is good.

Sambos,

Sometimes the principle of “scripture alone” is misconstrued. We all recognize the important job of our church to preach the Gospel Message but that does not mean that scripture which we call The Word of God is not sufficient information to descibe the Gospel Message which is sufficient information for salvation. What is there more that we need?
What else is called the Word of God?

But in our interpretation is it not important to seek the actual intent of the apostle at the time he wrote the verses? How else to do that but study the background and history and how the terms used at that time were intended? Dont we want to know what the apostle actually meant by his words? How do we do that if we do not think on our own rather than merely accepting what someone else says?

1. By Faith alone? Well, the way I see it is that if what you mean by faith includes participation in the divine life through the mysteries and the grace they provide; I don’t see much of a problem. If however, it excludes this participation then no.

Since it was Paul that preached salvation by Grace through Faith alone we need to look at his context for that. He certainly did not exclude Gods Law, “Love God and Neighbor.” He certainly did not mean a mere credulity. Here is how Martin Luther explained it. Note the last sentence where he asserts that faith and works cannot be separated.

“Faith is a living, unshakable confidence in God’s grace; it is so
certain that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind
of trust in and knowledge of God’s grace makes a person joyful,
confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures.This is
what the Holy Spirit does by faith.Through faith, a person will do
good to everyonewithout coercion, willinglyand happily; he will
serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise
of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate
works from faith as burning and shining from fire.”

1. By Grace alone? Absolutely, God by grace moves us to faith and provides assistance in our participation. Grace provides for our tranformation into the likeness of Christ and justifies us before God.

1. By Christ alone? Absolutely. It is Jesus Christ who saves us. It his merits upon which we rely. We must remain in him so that he will remain in us so that we can participate in his divine life producing the fruit pleasing to the father.

1. To the Glory of God Alone? Sure. We remind ourselves of that every Mass when we say the Sanctus

These should be easy to agree upon.

Rob

 

[sambos671]

Sambos,

Sometimes the principle of “scripture alone” is misconstrued. We all recognize the important job of our church to preach the Gospel Message but that does not mean that scripture which we call The Word of God is not sufficient information to descibe the Gospel Message which is sufficient information for salvation. What is there more that we need?
What else is called the Word of God?

When speaking of Scriptures and the Word of God let me be clear that I mean more that just “preaching the Gospel Message”. Scriptures are the Word of God. But are not the entirety the Word of God. As we can see Paul in his instruction to Timothy in this passage the fullness of the Word of God is revealed

But as for you, **continue in what you have learned **and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

We see the fullness of God’s revelation came not only from “Holy Scripture” to Timothy but the Authoritative teachings of those who were instructed in the Deposit of Faith by the Apostles. Jesus at no time claimed to have left a book to lead his church but did establish a church and gave it authority

I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

So the fulness of the Word of God is in the Deposit of Faith which is inclusive of all the teachings inclusive of the scriptures. But it is the Church that is the living entity by which the Holy Spirit leads his people.

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

and again

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

 

[sambos671]

continued.

But in our interpretation is it not important to seek the actual intent of the apostle at the time he wrote the verses?

Absolutely and we have a source which shows how these text have always been viewed. Primarily the Catholic Church. What I find a lot of people doing is reading a modern context into the actual text of scriptures forgeting that it was written 2,000 years ago in a culture totally unlike our own which makes important the consistent teachings of what has always been believed. The Early Church Fathers give us a witness on what was believed and practice at their time which was only a generation away from the Apostles some of whom even knew the apostles. However, I love going back to the greek understanding of the Text such as in John 6 which mentions that Jesus is the bread of life and this bread is the flesh which he give to the world and we must trogo (gk) it or gnaw it, or actually eat it. Somethings are just clearer in the greek.

Since it was Paul that preached salvation by Grace through Faith alone

He never did!. Paul certainly preached salvation by Grace through Faith working in Love. Often the book of Romans is used to attempt to confirm this salvation by Grace through Faith alone however it is often taken out of Context. For a better contextual view we should look at how Paul structures the book of Romans and see what he is actually getting at. In Romans chp 1 Paul says in his greeting

Through him we received grace and apostleship to **call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith **for his name’s sake.

The purpose of his ministry and the reason Paul is writing to the Romans is to call them to “obedience” which is brought about by “Faith”. Faith must have the end result of obedience or participation in what God wants us to do. To further confirm this view lets go to the very end of Romans

but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[f] faith — 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

So it is clear Paul believes that the Gospel message and the revelation of God and the Faith that is given is to lead people into obedient lives. Without the latter the previous is pointless. Thus this being the context of what he wants to pass on to the romans he says in chp 4

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

often misunderstood outside of the context. It is true that works absent of faith is useless but is Paul saying that faith is without obedience? No.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

How are we to understand how Paul views the faith of Abraham? Do you think Paul was thinking Abraham’s faith was just a confidence or heartfelt belief? Or did it include action? I think James sums up the apostolic view well

Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Faith is not complete unless it is acted upon.

we need to look at his context for that. He certainly did not exclude Gods Law, “Love God and Neighbor.” He certainly did not mean a mere credulity. Here is how Martin Luther explained it. Note the last sentence where he asserts that faith and works cannot be separated.

“Faith is a living, unshakable confidence in God’s grace; it is so
certain that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind
of trust in and **knowledge of God’s grace **makes a person joyful,
confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures.This is
what the Holy Spirit does by faith.Through faith, a person will do
good to everyonewithout coercion, willinglyand happily; he will
serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise
of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate
works from faith as burning and shining from fire.”

Even Luther did not stop at “unshakable confidence” but ensured that faith included the “do good to everyone without coercion”. Faith cannot only be “unshakeable confidence” because that would only be intellectual assent and not necissarily lead one to obedience.

These should be easy to agree upon.

Rob

Yes we agree with these.

 

[Prosmith]

I offer revision:
sola fide, and sola scriptura, are unbiblical, and against christian orthodoxy, at least prior to the reformation. The others are more or less true to varying degrees. However, trying to maintain all five leads to irreconcilable contradictions with the bible, and amongst each of the solas.

Are you trying to say that faith alone for salvation is unbiblical?? I must ask, what Bible are you reading?

 

[submariner2]

When speaking of Scriptures and the Word of God let me be clear that I mean more that just “preaching the Gospel Message”. Scriptures are the Word of God. But are not the entirety the Word of God. As we can see Paul in his instruction to Timothy in this passage the fullness of the Word of God is revealed

Sambos,

I agree. When we read scripture we thank God of the Word of God in scripture, the Word of God among us and the Word of God within us. I think this is similar to the Catholic definition of the Word of God.

We see the fullness of God’s revelation came not only from “Holy Scripture” to Timothy but the Authoritative teachings of those who were instructed in the Deposit of Faith by the Apostles. Jesus at no time claimed to have left a book to lead his church but did establish a church and gave it authority
So the fulness of the Word of God is in the Deposit of Faith which is inclusive of all the teachings inclusive of the scriptures. But it is the Church that is the living entity by which the Holy Spirit leads his people. and again

Here is what Father Raymond Brown teaches about that. His opinion appears to be approved.

.“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

.

Absolutely and we have a source which shows how these text have always been viewed. Primarily the Catholic Church. What I find a lot of people doing is reading a modern context into the actual text of scriptures forgeting that it was written 2,000 years ago in a culture totally unlike our own which makes important the consistent teachings of what has always been believed. The Early Church Fathers give us a witness on what was believed and practice at their time which was only a generation away from the Apostles some of whom even knew the apostles. However, I love going back to the greek understanding of the Text such as in John 6 which mentions that Jesus is the bread of life and this bread is the flesh which he give to the world and we must trogo (gk) it or gnaw it, or actually eat it. Somethings are just clearer in the greek.

sambos,

I am reading Father Raymond E. Brown recently and he says the Catholic church does not interpret scripture as to the original intent of the apostle.

He never did!. Paul certainly preached salvation by Grace through Faith working in Love. Often the book of Romans is used to attempt to confirm this salvation by Grace through Faith alone however it is often taken out of Context. For a better contextual view we should look at how Paul structures the book of Romans and see what he is actually getting at. In Romans chp 1 Paul says in his greeting
The purpose of his ministry and the reason Paul is writing to the Romans is to call them to “obedience” which is brought about by “Faith”. Faith must have the end result of obedience or participation in what God wants us to do. To further confirm this view lets go to the very end of Romans So it is clear Paul believes that the Gospel message and the revelation of God and the Faith that is given is to lead people into obedient lives. Without the latter the previous is pointless. Thus this being the context of what he wants to pass on to the romans he says in chp 4 often misunderstood outside of the context. It is true that works absent of faith is useless but is Paul saying that faith is without obedience? No. How are we to understand how Paul views the faith of Abraham? Do you think Paul was thinking Abraham’s faith was just a confidence or heartfelt belief? Or did it include action? I think James sums up the apostolic view well Faith is not complete unless it is acted upon.

Even Luther did not stop at “unshakable confidence” but ensured that faith included the “do good to everyone without coercion”. Faith cannot only be “unshakeable confidence” because that would only be intellectual assent and not necissarily lead one to obedience.

OF course not but it all starts with faith in Gods forgiveness in Christ. Here is another citation from Luther that explains Faith Alone. Yet faith cannot be separated from works. notice the last sentence.

“Faith is a living, unshakable confidence in God’s grace; it is so
certain that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind
of trust in and knowledge of God’s grace makes a person joyful,
confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures.This is
what the Holy Spirit does by faith.Through faith, a person will do
good to everyonewithout coercion, willinglyand happily; he will
serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise
of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate
works from faith as burning and shining from fire.”

My own church teaches the same but it all begins and derives from faith. Right?

Rob

 

[sambos671]

Sambos,

I agree. When we read scripture we thank God of the Word of God in scripture, the Word of God among us and the Word of God within us. I think this is similar to the Catholic definition of the Word of God.

Here is what Father Raymond Brown teaches about that. His opinion appears to be approved.

.“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

Rob

There are a couple of problems with Father Raymond Brown. Though he has valuable work as a textual critic he has made the same error as Bruce Metzger’s student Erhman and denied the inerrancy of scripture. Not all of Father Brown’s views are in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[submariner2]

There are a couple of problems with Father Raymond Brown. Though he has valuable work as a textual critic he has made the same error as Bruce Metzger’s student Erhman and denied the inerrancy of scripture. Not all of Father Brown’s views are in line with Catholic teaching.

sambos,

He was the top Catholic scholar and praised by popes. To support your assertion that he is not in line with Catholic teaching perhaps you would show me where? what book? with page number? so I can check it.

He has written over 35 books all approved with the Imprimatur. The Imprimatur means NOT out of line with Catholic teaching, so I would be very interested in looking at your support if you have any.

Rob

 

[sambos671]

sambos,

He was the top Catholic scholar and praised by popes. To support your assertion that he is not in line with Catholic teaching perhaps you would show me where? what book? with page number? so I can check it.

He has written over 35 books all approved with the Imprimatur. The Imprimatur means NOT out of line with Catholic teaching, so I would be very interested in looking at your support if you have any.

Rob

Why don’t you do a search of this site. Plus everything I’ve said is in line with the Catholic teaching as you can find out for yourself by reading the catachism on these issues of scripture and teaching of the church.

That is not to say he hasn’t said some valuable things or even wasn’t considered a good theologian but he has not present the catholic faith entirely correctly. Why don’t you read Dr. Robert Sugenis report on Fr. Raymond Brown in the Barllarmine Report. However for sure to teach that scriptures aren’t inerrent is heretical to the Catholic Church.

 

[submariner2]

Why don’t you do a search of this site. Plus everything I’ve said is in line with the Catholic teaching as you can find out for yourself by reading the catachism on these issues of scripture and teaching of the church.

That is not to say he hasn’t said some valuable things or even wasn’t considered a good theologian but he has not present the catholic faith entirely correctly. Why don’t you read Dr. Robert Sugenis report on Fr. Raymond Brown in the Barllarmine Report. However for sure to teach that scriptures aren’t inerrent is heretical to the Catholic Church.

sambose,

He was praised by popes and selected by two popes as the sole American to serve on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. He wrote over 30 books all approved by an Arch bishop with the Imprimatur.

I am happy to discuss any reservations you have with Father Brown but it seems to me he is the expert and not you when compared to his career. How can 30 Arch bishops be wrong? I would think he presents the facts of history correctly and the Catholic church does not refute it - obviously. Some Catholics may disagree with him of course. But are they right and he wrong? The choice for me is obvious. I have great respect for him. He provides the straight history.

I think the charge that he is a heretic of some kind very silly. Does that mean 30 Arch bishops are heretics also? And those two popes also?I would ask that you not make accusations against this good man unless you have backup. I have seen none and I would think if your book has anything in it of value you could simply present it.

Rob

 

[sambos671]

sambose,

He was praised by popes and selected by two popes as the sole American to serve on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. He wrote over 30 books all approved by an Arch bishop with the Imprimatur.

I am happy to discuss any reservations you have with Father Brown but it seems to me he is the expert and not you when compared to his career. How can 30 Arch bishops be wrong? I would think he presents the facts of history correctly and the Catholic church does not refute it - obviously. Some Catholics may disagree with him of course. But are they right and he wrong? The choice for me is obvious. I have great respect for him. He provides the straight history.

I think the charge that he is a heretic of some kind very silly. Does that mean 30 Arch bishops are heretics also? And those two popes also?I would ask that you not make accusations against this good man unless you have backup. I have seen none and I would think if your book has anything in it of value you could simply present it.

Rob

Are you trying to suggest to me that Father Raymond Brown’s belief that the scripture are not inerrant is somehow an acceptable position by the Catholic Church?

section 107 of the Catachism says

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and **without error **teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

In his time a lot of people praised Hans Kung but he ended up being excommunicated for heresies.

Are you suggesting archbishops cannot err? Currently there is an Archbishop in Austria who believes the Catholic Church Condones homosexual activity. Yet we see that the church teaches against this activity.

. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. - CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Are you trying to suggest to me that where a person can be found correct in some things that all of what they say is correct? Catholics don’t even suggest that of their pope

The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

Beyond those matters listed even The Pope can err.

Further more Cardinal Shehan and Many others disagreed with him. It seems to me that because he has a lot to offer doesn’t mean he’s 100% in line with Catholic Teaching which btw is made clear in the Catachism and in the writings of the fathers. Along with the Church Councils and documents.

However, to suggest that scriptures are not inerrant is a direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[submariner2]

sambos671;9384688]Are you trying to suggest to me that Father Raymond Brown’s belief that the scripture are not inerrant is somehow an acceptable position by the Catholic Church?

section 107 of the Catachism says

In his time a lot of people praised Hans Kung but he ended up being excommunicated for heresies.

Are you suggesting archbishops cannot err? Currently there is an Archbishop in Austria who believes the Catholic Church Condones homosexual activity. Yet we see that the church teaches against this activity.

sambos,

Anyone can err. What I am suggesting is that since 35 Archbishops have approved his books they are very likely not to violate Catholic church teachings.since that is the purpose of the Imprimatur. So should I take your unsupported opinion or the 35 Arch bishops, particularly when you have not provided a single specific instance?

Further more Cardinal Shehan and Many others disagreed with him. It seems to me that because he has a lot to offer doesn’t mean he’s 100% in line with Catholic Teaching which btw is made clear in the Catachism and in the writings of the fathers. Along with the Church Councils and documents.

You have provided no support for that, but even if that is true the score is 35 to 2.
Neither have you explained why Brown was selected as the only american to sit on the Pontifical Biblical Commission by two popes. I dont think they consider him a heretic even if you do. Besides, nobody is 100%.

However, to suggest that scriptures are not inerrant is a direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches

All scholars recognize that the bible is not a history book or a science book. It depends on what you mean by inerrant. That is a big subject and I sincerely doubt that you can show anywhere that Brown has violated teachings of the Catholic church. Until you can, lets drop the subject. We are not getting anywhere.

Rob

 

[sambos671]

sambos,
Anyone can err. What I am suggesting is that since 35 Archbishops have approved his books they are very likely not to violate Catholic church teachings.since that is the purpose of the Imprimatur. So should I take your unsupported opinion or the 35 Arch bishops, particularly when you have not provided a single specific instance?
You have provided no support for that, but even if that is true the score is 35 to 2.
Neither have you explained why Brown was selected as the only american to sit on the Pontifical Biblical Commission by two popes. I dont think they consider him a heretic even if you do. Besides, nobody is 100%.
All scholars recognize that the bible is not a history book or a science book. It depends on what you mean by inerrant. That is a big subject and** I sincerely doubt that you can show anywhere that Brown has violated teachings of the Catholic church**. Until you can, lets drop the subject. We are not getting anywhere.

Rob

Ok lets provide some evidence to support my position.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in an address given in 1988 and published in 19891, called for “a better synthesis between historical and theological methods, between criticism and dogma”

stated that

errors made in biblical exegesis over the preceding century “have virtually become academic dogmas,” …whose “basic methodological approaches continue even today to determine the methods and procedures of modern exegesis,”

This was in repsonse to several theologians including Fr. Raymond Brown where they did

not admit Christian faith as one of its operative principles, and it is naturalistic in that it does not accept into its world of reality any divine interventions or supernatural happenings.

Whereas Ratzinger held that

The right approach is to accept what the Scriptures seem to say as historically true unless this is shown to be false

This problematic view can be seen in Fr. Raymond Brown’s book “The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” where he concludes that

the presence of the virginal conception in the infancy narratives of two Gospels carries no absolute guarantee of historicity - p. 32

Whereas the Catholic Church has always held

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”. The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.

and again

510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).

Here is one example of how he goes against the teachings of the Catholic faith. I suppose like Tertullian, Brown didn’t start off as a heterodox and whereby he got his praise and awards, but that over time provided discenting comments from the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, teachings such as this from his book lead him that way. We find Tertullian leaving the Catholic Faith altogether. We also find Hans Kung started initially as orthodox but then was excommunicated. Fr. Brown never got to that point.

As far as inerrancy no one suggested treating the bible like a history book. But I agree with Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and note in Die Verbum it states

the books of Scripture are to be affirmed as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth as God wished it to be set down in Sacred Writings for the sake of our salvation” (Dei Verbum 11)