Raymond Brown was indeed one of the key figures who contributed into the spread of historical criticism of the Bible in Catholicism, a methodology which effectively denies inerrancy of Scripture and is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church on Sacred Scripture. It contributed to undermining of the faith and massive apostasy which we see in the Church after Vatican II. So yes, the use of Raymond Brown by Protestants against Catholics is akin to using John Dominic Crossan by unbelievers against Christianity.
Nice job lumping the errors of all forms of historical criticism onto one person who was attempting to learn specific things, and who did so with great understanding. Rome's doctrines themselves -- and a mass rejection of them -- is what "contributed to the undermining of the faith and the massive apostasy which we see in the Church after Vatican II.
This is the problem with people like you -- you're long on generalizations, and short on specifics. You probably don't even know what Brown said.
Yet Brown as appointed to the PBC by two successful popes. So he's hardly a renegade. Rather, he represents mainstream Catholic Bible scholar. That's been promoted by the highest levels of the Magisterium.
Arvinger - except 1. No Bible believing Christian or Bible Believing church would agree with Crossan, yet your church and at least 2 Popes approved of Raymond Brown and his scholarship, and 2. your church claims to be and have a "living voice" who can solve interpretive disagreements and disunity (ie, denominationalism in Protestantism), etc. and yet your church almost never uses that blessing and does not discipline scholars like Raymond Brown, among many others. Why did the Popes not discipline him? Why was he Nihil Oblat and Imprimatur on his books?
Ken - just like no "Bible believing" Church would agree with Crossan, no orthodox Catholic would agree with Fr Brown in his assertions that he cannot prove that Jesus Christ instituted the priesthood, that for the Early Christians the Eucharist was not a sacrifice and many other issues. Therefore, the comparison is entirely valid.
Steve - his presence in Pontifical Biblical Commission means very little, since he was appointed after Vatican II by two notorious modernists who were likely antipopes or at least Popes only materially, but not formally, as Cassiciacum Thesis suggests (although it can't be objectively proven without Church declaration).
John Bugay - yes, the current crisis was caused by Vatican II, as the council taught modernist heresies in such documents as Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae - this situation and apostasy in the Church were predicted numerous times by Our Lady in Fatima, Akita and other important apparitions, it is a result of a long-lasting modernist rot (which Pope St. Pius X fought through his encyclical Pascendi and introduction of anti-modernist oath) and Freemasonic infiltration of the Catholic Church. Views of people like Fr Brown unquestionably contributed to the modernist revolution which followed Vatican II.
John Bugay wrote this earlier excellent article, citing this quote from Raymond Brown. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/machen-pope-francis-and-hermeneutic-of.html
I have that book (see below, edited by John Armstrong) that John B. quotes from - the chapter by Robert Strimple. My copy has the quote on page 98 and the footnote on page 115.
Robert B. Strimple, in his contribution to “Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze what Divides and Unites Us,” (Chicago: Moody Press, Ed. John Armstrong, pg. 103), cites this very passage from Brown, along with other contemporary Roman Catholic theologians, and because of this “untethering from history,” Strimple concludes, “I am convinced that the theological situation in the Roman Catholic Church today must be viewed as worse than it was at the time of the Reformers.”
That was one of the first books I read, ( I read it in 1996 after my friend Rod Bennett became Roman Catholic). Getting it off the shelf and looking through it was a great reminder - thanks John!
I had marked that quote, but totally forgot about it; this was a great reminder of the content of this book.
what good is the "living voice" claim of RCC apologetics when they almost never discipline anyone, and modern Popes approve of liberal scholarship like Raymond Brown?
Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvagable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible. To those for whom it is doctrinal issue that the Church never changes, one must repeat Galileo's sotto voce response when told that it was a doctrinal issue that the earth does not move: "E pur si muove" ("Nevertheless, it moves"). And the best proof of movement is the kind of biblical scholarship practiced by ninety-five percent of Catholics writing today, a kind of scholarship that would not have been tolerated for a moment by church authorities in the first forty years of this century.
John, Brown was an erudite scholar, but that hardly means disagreement with him or challenging his perspective and methodology is a "slur". He was an exegete, not a dogmatic theologian. Many RC scholars criticized him: "In addition to Cardinal Shehan, such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church's age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy."
Other scholars include Fr. Jerome Quinn (a member of the PBC), Fr. Neil McEleney, Fr. John McKenzie, Fr. Dennis McCarthy, Fr. Manuel Miguens, Fr. Brian Harrison.
The use of historical-critical method is helpful and important, but limited and only one of many tools to be used in a broader context, as the PBC document on biblical interpretation notes. And as Ratzinger noted a decade earlier in his writings.
Calling him a "modernist" and a "heterodox" is a slur. I never made the claim that his work was "infallible", and so for you to construe such a thing is a a straw man. The fact that some RC scholars criticized him does not detract from the quality of the work he did. And as Steve noted, the popes who appointed him to the PBC did not criticize him.
And if, as you say, he was "not a dogmatic theologian", how in the world can he be accused of "revisionism". He investigated, and he reported what he found. The fact that traditional Roman Catholic accounts of things didn't line up with the historical and exegetical realities that he investigated ... well, Roman Catholicism has failed on historical and exegetical bases for a long, long time.
Even conservative Protestants are adopting historical critical methods (without the naturalistic presuppositions). And they are doing quite well. It is Roman Catholicism that needs to hamstring such investigations with its own presuppositions that leads one to ask "why?"
As for Ratzinger, I've commented on his comments about historical criticism, and I've found him to be wanting, if not outright dishonest about it.
Do you believe the popes that appointed him to the PBC agreed with every view of his? So we can't find any writings from JP2 disagreeing with Brown's view on the virgin birth or infancy narratives for example?
No one said conservative Protestants can't or shouldn't adopt historical critical methods. Conservative and orthodox RCs can as well. The point is the proper role and limits such a method has in an overall interpretive framework. You recognize this ("without the naturalistic presuppositions") - it shouldn't be a point of controversy.
You defend him from your Protestant perspective. When orthodox Catholics call him modernist or heterodox they do it from the Catholic perspective - calling into question truths which were dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church is a heresy, no matter what arguments one brings forward. From Catholic perspective, if ones historical-critical analysis of the Bible results in views which are contrary tu Church's teaching, then it means that the analysis is wrong and must be rejected. To do otherwise is to fall into heresy. Therefore, from the Catholic perspective it is entirely justified to call him a modernist.
The following propositions were condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane (1908):
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. - condemned
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves. - condemned
This condemns Fr Brown's approach to Scripture and his claims. Thus, as I said, from the Catholic perspective calling him heterodox and modernist is justified.
Calling him a modernist, as is apparent in the OP, is. And it's not a hypothetical.
Do you believe the popes that appointed him to the PBC agreed with every view of his?
No, but they also did not condemn nor censure him in any way.
The point is the proper role and limits such a method has in an overall interpretive framework. You recognize this ("without the naturalistic presuppositions") - it shouldn't be a point of controversy.
There is a difference: Protestants don't hamstring the investigation by saying what the conclusion of the work can and cannot be. Rome hamstrings the work, because the conclusions in many cases ARE contra Roman dogma.
Arvinger: What ultra-traditionalist splinter group are you from? You have bad things to say about Vatican II, but THEY are the ones in the big house. They are the ones with all the stuff, while you are on the outside throwing rocks. To them, you are just as bad as the Protestants.
John Bugay - doesn't matter, a formal heretic is not a Catholic and outside the Church, whether he materially sits in the Vatican or occupies a diocese. You could as well say to Athanasius in the time of Arian crisis - "Arians are the big ones in the house, while you, Athanasius, are outside throwing rocks". Vatican II was contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, and so were numerous teachings of post-Vatican II (anti?)Popes - that is what matters.
Even Benedict XVI admitted this - in his Principles of Catholic Theology he wrote that Vatican II's document Gaudium et Spes was a counter-syllabus (refering to Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX) and that the one-sided approach of Pope Pius IX was corrected. One could hardly require a more explicit evidence that Vatican II (where Ratzinger was one of the most infuential theologians) teaches error and is contradicts previous Catholic teaching. Another example: http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_024_KoenigCCL.htm
As I said, it is also consistent with numerous private revelations, including the most important Marian apparitions (Third Secret of Fatima warning against apostasy in the Church, Our Lady requested to make it public in 1960, probably to warn against Vatican II revolution, which is why John XXIII refused to publish it then), and visions of mystics such as Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich who saw a future attempt to set up a false Church in Rome with heretics and schismatics. Scripture also warns us against great apostasy before the Second Coming of Christ. It is tragic, but not surprising.
I consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm not strictly sedevacantist though, because my private judgment is insufficient to determine the loss of office by the Pope, however likely it is. However, considering the fact that legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Pope has to be known as dogmatic fact (thus the rule papa dubius, nullus papa), these significant doubts about the legitimacy of conciliar and post-conciliar claimants to the papacy are sufficient to justify the support for the Traditional Catholic movement (SSPX, Bishop Williamson's Resistance, CMRI, SSPV etc.).
Please consider that sedevacantism is correct and in error.
It is correct that Rome has changed from what it once was.
It's more fundamental error is that Rome's claims were in error.
You correctly recognize that it went off the rails. You fail to recognize that, given Rome's claims about itself, going off the rails means it wasn't on the correct rails to begin with.
Arvinger: I consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church.
Have you considered that (as Geoff Robinson mentioned) that the entire Roman Catholic notion that it is somehow where "the Church that Christ founded" "subsists" is wrong?
No, I have not considered that because it is impossible, and the Biblical teaching on justification, Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, extra-biblical authoritative tradition, Our Lady - to name just few areas - are Catholic and refute Protestantism.
Sedeprivationism and the Pope falling into heresy are not incompatible with Catholic teaching at all. Many Saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphosus Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St. Antoninus and others, considered the scenario of a Pope falling into heresy in their teachings. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the current situation was predicted in many private revelations and Marian apparitions through centuries.
Considering this, the current post-Vatican II crisis in the Church does not carry any indications which would force me to doubt the truthfulness of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, the fact that Satan and some of the most evil powers of this world, such as Freemasonry, work so hard to destroy the Catholic Church confirm her status of the only true Church of Christ.
No, I have not considered that because it is impossible
Only by presupposition. And this should be challenged. There is enough counter-evidence given in enough areas that it should be evident that this presupposition should be challenged.
he Biblical teaching on justification, Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, extra-biblical authoritative tradition, Our Lady - to name just few areas - are Catholic and refute Protestantism.
Justification is purely forensic in the Bible, and refutes the Roman version. Baptismal regeneration is a *possibility* in one verse. But the preponderance of Biblical teaching is that Baptism is a post-coversion visible sign of a pre-existing inward conversion. Only a Roman presupposition to anachronistically fit things into the current Roman doctrinal system make biblical interpretations "Catholic". "Tradition" is so muddied that there is no telling what the *actual* tradition was, outside of that which was written down, and a few externals listed by Basil in the 4th century, and *Your lady* wasn't really a thing until the 4th century.
Sedeprivationism and the Pope falling into heresy are not incompatible with Catholic teaching at all.
Of course. Many "popes" were among the worst scum who ever lived.
Many Saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphosus Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St. Antoninus and others, considered the scenario of a Pope falling into heresy in their teachings.
You can't really miss it if you study church history.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the current situation was predicted in many private revelations and Marian apparitions through centuries.
They are all very non-specific, like a horoscope: "You will have bad times ahead".
Considering this, the current post-Vatican II crisis in the Church does not carry any indications which would force me to doubt the truthfulness of the Catholic Church.
You certainly doubt Vatican II. How does that in any way verify the truthfulness of what came before? There are many, many "faithful Catholics" who do not doubt Vatican II, which, as you say, changes what had come before. You are in a bind.
To the contrary, the fact that Satan and some of the most evil powers of this world, such as Freemasonry, work so hard to destroy the Catholic Church confirm her status of the only true Church of Christ.
Either that, or the Roman Catholic story about itself is such a sham, that it invites criticism.
"Only by presupposition. And this should be challenged. There is enough counter-evidence given in enough areas that it should be evident that this presupposition should be challenged."
Yes, absolutely, it is a presupposition - same as your presupposition about authority of the Bible. Would you consider as possible that the Bible is not inspired? You would not, because it is your presupposition. Any claim to final authority is necessarily presuppositional in nature.
"Justification is purely forensic in the Bible, and refutes the Roman version. Baptismal regeneration is a *possibility* in one verse. But the preponderance of Biblical teaching is that Baptism is a post-coversion visible sign of a pre-existing inward conversion."
So much is packed into this and so much has been written on these issues that it is impossible to exhaustively response to this here. In a nutshell - forensic justification and imputation of rightenousness is misreading of Romans 4, which is recognized even by some Protestants, like advocates of New Perspective on Paul (there is not a single statement in Scripture which teaches that Christs righteousness/perfect obediance is imputed to the believer and constitutes basis for his justification), it goes contrary to passages which clearly teach justification through inward change, like Titus 3:4-7 - St. Paul teaches here we are saved through "washing of regeneration" (i.e. through internal change within us, not legal declaration), which means that justification occurs through sanctification. Baptismal regenration - unanimous consensus of Church Fathers on John 3:5, plus 1 Peter 3:21 (the first Pope teaches that receive good consience through baptism, not that baptism is administered after we receive good conscience), Mark 16:16 (could not be plainer - two conditions for salvation, faith and baptism), Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12. Existence of extrabiblical teaching is plain from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - no matter how apologists like James White try to spin it, it teaches that some of the teachings were delivered by St. Paul by letter, and other ones orally. One would have to assert that all the oral teachings were eventually written down (I had cases in discussions with Protestants where a Protestant implied that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not binding today because everything was written down), but the Bible of course never teaches that. St. Paul refers to previously delivered teachings also in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Philippians 4:9. In 3 John 1:13-14 St. John indicates he actually prefers to communicate orally then through writing. Finally, sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible, which is why it is self-refuting. Our Lady's perpetual virginity is clearly taught in Luke 1:34 (if she intended to have relations with Joseph, why would she be surprised at the promise of *future* conception of a child? It makes sense only if she intended to remain virgin). The form of word kecharitomene from Luke 1:28 is used only one other time in the New Testament - in Ephesians 1:6 to describe justified believers as being "graced". Thus, Mary was in a state equivalent to justification before the Cross, which was possible only if she was sinless and immaculately conceived. As I said, too many issues to even begin to cover in more detail in a comment box.
"Of course. Many "popes" were among the worst scum who ever lived."
Irrelevant. You fail to distinguish between personal sins of certain Popes and the doctrine. The Holy Ghost protects the teaching of the Magisterium, not personal holiness of the Pope.
"They are all very non-specific, like a horoscope: "You will have bad times ahead".
Many of them were are quite specific in details. Desmond Birch wrote a 700-pages book "Trial, Tribulation and Triumph: Before, During and After Antichrist" on private revelations and the end times, proving we can distinguish quite a detailed, albeit obviously not infallible sequence of events. What likely awaits us in not so far future are futher wars, famines and natural disasters, culminating in a supernatural chastisement extinguishing large portion of mankind (possibly Three Days of Darkness). Afterwards there will be a brief period of peace and Catholic renewal, followed by another, even worse apostasy, the Antichrist and the Second Coming.
"You certainly doubt Vatican II. How does that in any way verify the truthfulness of what came before? There are many, many "faithful Catholics" who do not doubt Vatican II, which, as you say, changes what had come before. You are in a bind."
If Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church, it is not part of the Magisterium are people who promulgated it could not have been Popes. In that case there is no question of doubting the Magisterium. I cannot determine it with certainty on the basis of my private judgment (we need judgment of the Church), but this seems to be the most likely scenario. Many people remain in the Conciliar Church with its new teachings and abominable Novus Ordo Mass for various reasons - many are ignorant of the faith, others due to false sense of obediance, some do gymnasticts in order to reinterpret Vatican II in line with Tradition. Finally, there is increasing number of people in the post-Conciliar Church who start realizing what is going on, especially under the scandalous (anti?)pontificate of Francis.
"Either that, or the Roman Catholic story about itself is such a sham, that it invites criticism."
I'm not talking about criticism, but about attempts to destroy the Church from within by Freemasonry. Freemasons never had problem with Protestantism because of plurality of doctrines and emphasis on the individual as final authority in interpreting the Bible, which results in relativism. But they do have problems wit the Catholic Church, because it unapologetically teaches the truth in dogmatic manner - that is contrary to the Freemasonic philosophy in which different religions lead to God and in their attempts to create one world religion. There are numerous Freemasonic documents and statements from before Vatican II which emphasized the need to influcence the Catholic Church from within to water down her teachings.
I consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm not strictly sedevacantist though, because my private judgment is insufficient to determine the loss of office by the Pope, however likely it is.
So, you suspect that the popes from V2 on have gone rogue given their "support" for unTraditional teachings about Catholic doctrine, but it seems like you can't be sure. That's sounds like a difficult position to be in since as a Catholic you would ordinarily count on the higher-ups to reign in the rogue agents and issue guidance as to questions that arise regarding doctrine. But that hasn't happened, at least as far as the issues that you are concerned about. A frequent apologetic from Catholics is the alleged advantage in the RCC of the Magisterium to ensure correct teaching. But as Steve likes to say, "Where's that certainty when you need it?"
Raymond Brown was indeed one of the key figures who contributed into the spread of historical criticism of the Bible in Catholicism, a methodology which effectively denies inerrancy of Scripture and is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church on Sacred Scripture. It contributed to undermining of the faith and massive apostasy which we see in the Church after Vatican II. So yes, the use of Raymond Brown by Protestants against Catholics is akin to using John Dominic Crossan by unbelievers against Christianity.
ReplyDeleteNice job lumping the errors of all forms of historical criticism onto one person who was attempting to learn specific things, and who did so with great understanding. Rome's doctrines themselves -- and a mass rejection of them -- is what "contributed to the undermining of the faith and the massive apostasy which we see in the Church after Vatican II.
DeleteThis is the problem with people like you -- you're long on generalizations, and short on specifics. You probably don't even know what Brown said.
Yet Brown as appointed to the PBC by two successful popes. So he's hardly a renegade. Rather, he represents mainstream Catholic Bible scholar. That's been promoted by the highest levels of the Magisterium.
DeleteArvinger - except 1. No Bible believing Christian or Bible Believing church would agree with Crossan, yet your church and at least 2 Popes approved of Raymond Brown and his scholarship, and 2. your church claims to be and have a "living voice" who can solve interpretive disagreements and disunity (ie, denominationalism in Protestantism), etc. and yet your church almost never uses that blessing and does not discipline scholars like Raymond Brown, among many others. Why did the Popes not discipline him? Why was he Nihil Oblat and Imprimatur on his books?
DeleteKen - just like no "Bible believing" Church would agree with Crossan, no orthodox Catholic would agree with Fr Brown in his assertions that he cannot prove that Jesus Christ instituted the priesthood, that for the Early Christians the Eucharist was not a sacrifice and many other issues. Therefore, the comparison is entirely valid.
DeleteSteve - his presence in Pontifical Biblical Commission means very little, since he was appointed after Vatican II by two notorious modernists who were likely antipopes or at least Popes only materially, but not formally, as Cassiciacum Thesis suggests (although it can't be objectively proven without Church declaration).
John Bugay - yes, the current crisis was caused by Vatican II, as the council taught modernist heresies in such documents as Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae - this situation and apostasy in the Church were predicted numerous times by Our Lady in Fatima, Akita and other important apparitions, it is a result of a long-lasting modernist rot (which Pope St. Pius X fought through his encyclical Pascendi and introduction of anti-modernist oath) and Freemasonic infiltration of the Catholic Church. Views of people like Fr Brown unquestionably contributed to the modernist revolution which followed Vatican II.
“Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are re-quoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time” (Raymond Brown, “The Critical Meaning of the Bible,” New York, NY: Paulist Press ©1981, Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur, page 18 footnote 41).
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay wrote this earlier excellent article, citing this quote from Raymond Brown.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/machen-pope-francis-and-hermeneutic-of.html
I have that book (see below, edited by John Armstrong) that John B. quotes from - the chapter by Robert Strimple. My copy has the quote on page 98 and the footnote on page 115.
Robert B. Strimple, in his contribution to “Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze what Divides and Unites Us,” (Chicago: Moody Press, Ed. John Armstrong, pg. 103), cites this very passage from Brown, along with other contemporary Roman Catholic theologians, and because of this “untethering from history,” Strimple concludes, “I am convinced that the theological situation in the Roman Catholic Church today must be viewed as worse than it was at the time of the Reformers.”
That was one of the first books I read, ( I read it in 1996 after my friend Rod Bennett became Roman Catholic). Getting it off the shelf and looking through it was a great reminder - thanks John!
I had marked that quote, but totally forgot about it; this was a great reminder of the content of this book.
Thanks Ken :-)
DeleteThat was one of the first books I read in response to the Evangelicals becoming Roman Catholic phenomenon.
ReplyDeletewhat good is the "living voice" claim of RCC apologetics when they almost never discipline anyone, and modern Popes approve of liberal scholarship like Raymond Brown?
ReplyDeleteFull quote:
ReplyDeleteEssential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvagable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible. To those for whom it is doctrinal issue that the Church never changes, one must repeat Galileo's sotto voce response when told that it was a doctrinal issue that the earth does not move: "E pur si muove" ("Nevertheless, it moves"). And the best proof of movement is the kind of biblical scholarship practiced by ninety-five percent of Catholics writing today, a kind of scholarship that would not have been tolerated for a moment by church authorities in the first forty years of this century.
John,
ReplyDeleteBrown was an erudite scholar, but that hardly means disagreement with him or challenging his perspective and methodology is a "slur". He was an exegete, not a dogmatic theologian. Many RC scholars criticized him:
"In addition to Cardinal Shehan, such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church's age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy."
Other scholars include Fr. Jerome Quinn (a member of the PBC), Fr. Neil McEleney, Fr. John McKenzie, Fr. Dennis McCarthy, Fr. Manuel Miguens, Fr. Brian Harrison.
The use of historical-critical method is helpful and important, but limited and only one of many tools to be used in a broader context, as the PBC document on biblical interpretation notes. And as Ratzinger noted a decade earlier in his writings.
Calling him a "modernist" and a "heterodox" is a slur. I never made the claim that his work was "infallible", and so for you to construe such a thing is a a straw man. The fact that some RC scholars criticized him does not detract from the quality of the work he did. And as Steve noted, the popes who appointed him to the PBC did not criticize him.
DeleteAnd if, as you say, he was "not a dogmatic theologian", how in the world can he be accused of "revisionism". He investigated, and he reported what he found. The fact that traditional Roman Catholic accounts of things didn't line up with the historical and exegetical realities that he investigated ... well, Roman Catholicism has failed on historical and exegetical bases for a long, long time.
Even conservative Protestants are adopting historical critical methods (without the naturalistic presuppositions). And they are doing quite well. It is Roman Catholicism that needs to hamstring such investigations with its own presuppositions that leads one to ask "why?"
As for Ratzinger, I've commented on his comments about historical criticism, and I've found him to be wanting, if not outright dishonest about it.
John,
DeleteIs Brown a liberal? If so, is that a slur?
Do you believe the popes that appointed him to the PBC agreed with every view of his? So we can't find any writings from JP2 disagreeing with Brown's view on the virgin birth or infancy narratives for example?
No one said conservative Protestants can't or shouldn't adopt historical critical methods. Conservative and orthodox RCs can as well. The point is the proper role and limits such a method has in an overall interpretive framework. You recognize this ("without the naturalistic presuppositions") - it shouldn't be a point of controversy.
You defend him from your Protestant perspective. When orthodox Catholics call him modernist or heterodox they do it from the Catholic perspective - calling into question truths which were dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church is a heresy, no matter what arguments one brings forward. From Catholic perspective, if ones historical-critical analysis of the Bible results in views which are contrary tu Church's teaching, then it means that the analysis is wrong and must be rejected. To do otherwise is to fall into heresy. Therefore, from the Catholic perspective it is entirely justified to call him a modernist.
DeleteThe following propositions were condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane (1908):
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. - condemned
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves. - condemned
This condemns Fr Brown's approach to Scripture and his claims. Thus, as I said, from the Catholic perspective calling him heterodox and modernist is justified.
"Cletus":
DeleteIs Brown a liberal? If so, is that a slur?
Calling him a modernist, as is apparent in the OP, is. And it's not a hypothetical.
Do you believe the popes that appointed him to the PBC agreed with every view of his?
No, but they also did not condemn nor censure him in any way.
The point is the proper role and limits such a method has in an overall interpretive framework. You recognize this ("without the naturalistic presuppositions") - it shouldn't be a point of controversy.
There is a difference: Protestants don't hamstring the investigation by saying what the conclusion of the work can and cannot be. Rome hamstrings the work, because the conclusions in many cases ARE contra Roman dogma.
Arvinger: What ultra-traditionalist splinter group are you from? You have bad things to say about Vatican II, but THEY are the ones in the big house. They are the ones with all the stuff, while you are on the outside throwing rocks. To them, you are just as bad as the Protestants.
DeleteJohn Bugay - doesn't matter, a formal heretic is not a Catholic and outside the Church, whether he materially sits in the Vatican or occupies a diocese. You could as well say to Athanasius in the time of Arian crisis - "Arians are the big ones in the house, while you, Athanasius, are outside throwing rocks". Vatican II was contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, and so were numerous teachings of post-Vatican II (anti?)Popes - that is what matters.
DeleteEven Benedict XVI admitted this - in his Principles of Catholic Theology he wrote that Vatican II's document Gaudium et Spes was a counter-syllabus (refering to Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX) and that the one-sided approach of Pope Pius IX was corrected. One could hardly require a more explicit evidence that Vatican II (where Ratzinger was one of the most infuential theologians) teaches error and is contradicts previous Catholic teaching. Another example:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_024_KoenigCCL.htm
As I said, it is also consistent with numerous private revelations, including the most important Marian apparitions (Third Secret of Fatima warning against apostasy in the Church, Our Lady requested to make it public in 1960, probably to warn against Vatican II revolution, which is why John XXIII refused to publish it then), and visions of mystics such as Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich who saw a future attempt to set up a false Church in Rome with heretics and schismatics. Scripture also warns us against great apostasy before the Second Coming of Christ. It is tragic, but not surprising.
So you're a sedevacantist?
DeleteI consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm not strictly sedevacantist though, because my private judgment is insufficient to determine the loss of office by the Pope, however likely it is. However, considering the fact that legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Pope has to be known as dogmatic fact (thus the rule papa dubius, nullus papa), these significant doubts about the legitimacy of conciliar and post-conciliar claimants to the papacy are sufficient to justify the support for the Traditional Catholic movement (SSPX, Bishop Williamson's Resistance, CMRI, SSPV etc.).
DeletePlease consider that sedevacantism is correct and in error.
DeleteIt is correct that Rome has changed from what it once was.
It's more fundamental error is that Rome's claims were in error.
You correctly recognize that it went off the rails. You fail to recognize that, given Rome's claims about itself, going off the rails means it wasn't on the correct rails to begin with.
Arvinger: I consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church.
DeleteHave you considered that (as Geoff Robinson mentioned) that the entire Roman Catholic notion that it is somehow where "the Church that Christ founded" "subsists" is wrong?
No, I have not considered that because it is impossible, and the Biblical teaching on justification, Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, extra-biblical authoritative tradition, Our Lady - to name just few areas - are Catholic and refute Protestantism.
DeleteSedeprivationism and the Pope falling into heresy are not incompatible with Catholic teaching at all. Many Saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphosus Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St. Antoninus and others, considered the scenario of a Pope falling into heresy in their teachings. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the current situation was predicted in many private revelations and Marian apparitions through centuries.
Considering this, the current post-Vatican II crisis in the Church does not carry any indications which would force me to doubt the truthfulness of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, the fact that Satan and some of the most evil powers of this world, such as Freemasonry, work so hard to destroy the Catholic Church confirm her status of the only true Church of Christ.
No, I have not considered that because it is impossible
DeleteOnly by presupposition. And this should be challenged. There is enough counter-evidence given in enough areas that it should be evident that this presupposition should be challenged.
he Biblical teaching on justification, Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, extra-biblical authoritative tradition, Our Lady - to name just few areas - are Catholic and refute Protestantism.
Justification is purely forensic in the Bible, and refutes the Roman version. Baptismal regeneration is a *possibility* in one verse. But the preponderance of Biblical teaching is that Baptism is a post-coversion visible sign of a pre-existing inward conversion. Only a Roman presupposition to anachronistically fit things into the current Roman doctrinal system make biblical interpretations "Catholic". "Tradition" is so muddied that there is no telling what the *actual* tradition was, outside of that which was written down, and a few externals listed by Basil in the 4th century, and *Your lady* wasn't really a thing until the 4th century.
Sedeprivationism and the Pope falling into heresy are not incompatible with Catholic teaching at all.
Of course. Many "popes" were among the worst scum who ever lived.
Many Saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphosus Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St. Antoninus and others, considered the scenario of a Pope falling into heresy in their teachings.
You can't really miss it if you study church history.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the current situation was predicted in many private revelations and Marian apparitions through centuries.
They are all very non-specific, like a horoscope: "You will have bad times ahead".
Considering this, the current post-Vatican II crisis in the Church does not carry any indications which would force me to doubt the truthfulness of the Catholic Church.
You certainly doubt Vatican II. How does that in any way verify the truthfulness of what came before? There are many, many "faithful Catholics" who do not doubt Vatican II, which, as you say, changes what had come before. You are in a bind.
To the contrary, the fact that Satan and some of the most evil powers of this world, such as Freemasonry, work so hard to destroy the Catholic Church confirm her status of the only true Church of Christ.
Either that, or the Roman Catholic story about itself is such a sham, that it invites criticism.
"Only by presupposition. And this should be challenged. There is enough counter-evidence given in enough areas that it should be evident that this presupposition should be challenged."
DeleteYes, absolutely, it is a presupposition - same as your presupposition about authority of the Bible. Would you consider as possible that the Bible is not inspired? You would not, because it is your presupposition. Any claim to final authority is necessarily presuppositional in nature.
"Justification is purely forensic in the Bible, and refutes the Roman version. Baptismal regeneration is a *possibility* in one verse. But the preponderance of Biblical teaching is that Baptism is a post-coversion visible sign of a pre-existing inward conversion."
So much is packed into this and so much has been written on these issues that it is impossible to exhaustively response to this here. In a nutshell - forensic justification and imputation of rightenousness is misreading of Romans 4, which is recognized even by some Protestants, like advocates of New Perspective on Paul (there is not a single statement in Scripture which teaches that Christs righteousness/perfect obediance is imputed to the believer and constitutes basis for his justification), it goes contrary to passages which clearly teach justification through inward change, like Titus 3:4-7 - St. Paul teaches here we are saved through "washing of regeneration" (i.e. through internal change within us, not legal declaration), which means that justification occurs through sanctification. Baptismal regenration - unanimous consensus of Church Fathers on John 3:5, plus 1 Peter 3:21 (the first Pope teaches that receive good consience through baptism, not that baptism is administered after we receive good conscience), Mark 16:16 (could not be plainer - two conditions for salvation, faith and baptism), Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12. Existence of extrabiblical teaching is plain from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - no matter how apologists like James White try to spin it, it teaches that some of the teachings were delivered by St. Paul by letter, and other ones orally. One would have to assert that all the oral teachings were eventually written down (I had cases in discussions with Protestants where a Protestant implied that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not binding today because everything was written down), but the Bible of course never teaches that. St. Paul refers to previously delivered teachings also in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Philippians 4:9. In 3 John 1:13-14 St. John indicates he actually prefers to communicate orally then through writing. Finally, sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible, which is why it is self-refuting. Our Lady's perpetual virginity is clearly taught in Luke 1:34 (if she intended to have relations with Joseph, why would she be surprised at the promise of *future* conception of a child? It makes sense only if she intended to remain virgin). The form of word kecharitomene from Luke 1:28 is used only one other time in the New Testament - in Ephesians 1:6 to describe justified believers as being "graced". Thus, Mary was in a state equivalent to justification before the Cross, which was possible only if she was sinless and immaculately conceived. As I said, too many issues to even begin to cover in more detail in a comment box.
"Of course. Many "popes" were among the worst scum who ever lived."
DeleteIrrelevant. You fail to distinguish between personal sins of certain Popes and the doctrine. The Holy Ghost protects the teaching of the Magisterium, not personal holiness of the Pope.
"They are all very non-specific, like a horoscope: "You will have bad times ahead".
Many of them were are quite specific in details. Desmond Birch wrote a 700-pages book "Trial, Tribulation and Triumph: Before, During and After Antichrist" on private revelations and the end times, proving we can distinguish quite a detailed, albeit obviously not infallible sequence of events. What likely awaits us in not so far future are futher wars, famines and natural disasters, culminating in a supernatural chastisement extinguishing large portion of mankind (possibly Three Days of Darkness). Afterwards there will be a brief period of peace and Catholic renewal, followed by another, even worse apostasy, the Antichrist and the Second Coming.
"You certainly doubt Vatican II. How does that in any way verify the truthfulness of what came before? There are many, many "faithful Catholics" who do not doubt Vatican II, which, as you say, changes what had come before. You are in a bind."
If Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church, it is not part of the Magisterium are people who promulgated it could not have been Popes. In that case there is no question of doubting the Magisterium. I cannot determine it with certainty on the basis of my private judgment (we need judgment of the Church), but this seems to be the most likely scenario. Many people remain in the Conciliar Church with its new teachings and abominable Novus Ordo Mass for various reasons - many are ignorant of the faith, others due to false sense of obediance, some do gymnasticts in order to reinterpret Vatican II in line with Tradition. Finally, there is increasing number of people in the post-Conciliar Church who start realizing what is going on, especially under the scandalous (anti?)pontificate of Francis.
"Either that, or the Roman Catholic story about itself is such a sham, that it invites criticism."
I'm not talking about criticism, but about attempts to destroy the Church from within by Freemasonry. Freemasons never had problem with Protestantism because of plurality of doctrines and emphasis on the individual as final authority in interpreting the Bible, which results in relativism. But they do have problems wit the Catholic Church, because it unapologetically teaches the truth in dogmatic manner - that is contrary to the Freemasonic philosophy in which different religions lead to God and in their attempts to create one world religion. There are numerous Freemasonic documents and statements from before Vatican II which emphasized the need to influcence the Catholic Church from within to water down her teachings.
I consider sedevacantism (or rather sedeprivationism as defined in Cassiciacum thesis) to be the most likely explanation of the current unprecedent crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm not strictly sedevacantist though, because my private judgment is insufficient to determine the loss of office by the Pope, however likely it is.
ReplyDeleteSo, you suspect that the popes from V2 on have gone rogue given their "support" for unTraditional teachings about Catholic doctrine, but it seems like you can't be sure. That's sounds like a difficult position to be in since as a Catholic you would ordinarily count on the higher-ups to reign in the rogue agents and issue guidance as to questions that arise regarding doctrine. But that hasn't happened, at least as far as the issues that you are concerned about. A frequent apologetic from Catholics is the alleged advantage in the RCC of the Magisterium to ensure correct teaching. But as Steve likes to say, "Where's that certainty when you need it?"