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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?"
Comment has been blocked.
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.
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?
DeleteComment has been blocked.
“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.
Comment has been blocked.
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.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"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.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
So you're a sedevacantist?
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Please 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?
Comment has been blocked.
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.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
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?"