Here's another comment from the same writer, Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), pp. 39-40.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Private Interpretation of Scripture for Roman Catholics
Here's a tidbit I came across from Roman Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 142.
Here's another comment from the same writer, Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), pp. 39-40.
Here's another comment from the same writer, Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), pp. 39-40.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
An apologist is not a theologian, professional scriptural scholar, etc. (Of course a person could be both a theologian and an apologist the point is they are two different things). Good apologists, such as you, James, carefully check out what they are asserting against real scholarship. Too many apologists these days are lousy and ought to quit until they've studied more.
Thank you for what you do and happy New Year!
Thanks so much for your comment and your visits to this blog.
JS
I am not sure what you are getting at with this post.
And for the record, Raymond Brown is a notorious liberal who denied doctrines like the Virgin Birth and said that the Bible had errors. Obviously, he's not a source one should appeal to if one is seeking to make a good argument. It would be like a Catholic quoting Ehrman or Sanders against historic Protestant teachings.
Best to stick with Councils and Enyclicals.
Hi Nick,
You do realize the 2 books cited in this blog entry have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?
with having the imprimatur and nihil obstat, would that not mean the source does not have any moral or doctrinal errors in it?
Both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are neither infallible nor in themselves authoritative. The sad truth is, they've frequently been abused in recent decades, so they're not much of an indicator the way they used to be. Often, a liberal author will go as close as they can to saying or implying objectionable material so that it just flies under the radar.
A person who denies the virgin birth, resurrection, and infancy narratives, to name a few big ones is simply not a 'scholar' that any serious Catholic or Protestant should put much stock in.
Hi Nick.
Are you saying you disagree with the actual quotes by Brown in this blog post?
Also interesting that from your comments one has to still use their private interpretation after something has been given a imprimatur/nihil obstat.
Since Brown does not believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, etc...was he anathematized or kicked out of the RCC at all?
Thanks.
in Him.
-Joe
Joe - do your own research and quit asking others to answer questions you are capable of finding on your own. Its an old tired tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown#Criticism
Catholic Journeyman,
Actually, I was not trying to pull any "tactics", so am unclear on what you mean by that. It was an honest question as I do not know all that much about Brown. Thanks for the link you gave. I did look it over but found nothing about him being kicked out of the church or disciplined, etc...for his heretical views according to the RCC. Even at his death, according to your link:
He died at St. Patrick's Seminary, Menlo Park, California. Cardinal Mahony hailed him as "the most distinguished and renowned Catholic biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever" and his death, the cardinal said, was "a great loss to the Church."
Perhaps my last question regarding Brown was off topic, and I do apologize for that. If Mr. Swan wants to boot my remarks off this topic, I am certainly fine with that. But it made me wonder if Nick was correct about Browns views, if Brown was ever disciplined, etc. But according to your source of info on the matter, he was praised even in his death. Other supporting quotes for the link could be provided, even by the current pope...and some criticisms as well.
But staying on the specific topic Mr. Swan has brought up, do you agree with Brown's quotes in this post??
Thanks.
in Him,
-joe
Joe,
I originally posted that I was unsure what James was getting at, since the quotes were ambiguous to me. They could be taken in different ways, and not necessarily heretical ones.
I am not using "private interpretation after something has been given an imprimatur" since that's a category mistake. Private interpretation applies to inspired/dogmatic sources and interpreting them without regard to the Church's intentions or correction. Works of private theologians don't fall into the category.
As with other troubled times in Church history, sin and heresy are often allowed to fester without being addressed. For liberals like Brown, they were crafty at how they presented their work, and they sought liberal bishops to give their 'blessing'. This of course doesn't invalidate the fact there are Domgas that cannot be ignored or denied, regardless of how tightly they close their eyes, so whether Brown and Co were disciplined doesn't exclude the fact they were culpable for heresy in God's eyes.
The sad truth is, they've frequently been abused in recent decades, so they're not much of an indicator the way they used to be. Often, a liberal author will go as close as they can to saying or implying objectionable material so that it just flies under the radar.
Nick,
Exactly how does one determine who is representing Rome correctly?
do your own research and quit asking others to answer questions you are capable of finding on your own.
Quoting Wikipedia is not doing "research", at least not on this blog.
"Both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are neither infallible nor in themselves authoritative. The sad truth is, they've frequently been abused in recent decades, so they're not much of an indicator the way they used to be."
(Fr.) Brown was the author of 25 books, a seminary professor, a widely respected Johannine scholar and an appointee to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. But that's not good enough for Nick.
Nick is an Uber-Catholic layman; more Catholic than his ecclesiastical betters that he ostensibly heeds in matters of faith and morals.
Nick is going to save Catholicism from the Pope because Nick is not taken in by liberal "dissenters" like Raymond Brown unlike Pope Benedict.
Go Nick.
Nick is an Uber-Catholic layman; more Catholic than his ecclesiastical betters that he ostensibly heeds in matters of faith and morals.
Nick said earlier, "Best to stick with Councils and Enyclicals." Does this apply to Nick's words as well? If yes, why should any Roman Catholic bother commenting on anything?
James,
You asked: "Exactly how does one determine who is representing Rome correctly?"
In situations involving denying basic Christian teachings like the Virgin Birth and historicity of Infancy Narratives, it's not hard to tell who is representing Rome correctly. For example, the Creed explicitly says Jesus was "born of a Virgin," and the Four Canticles (Magnificat; Gloria; Benedictus; Nunc Dimittis) are used very frequently in the Liturgy so to suggest they are ahistorical is to say the Church celebrates events that never happened.
"In situations involving denying basic Christian teachings like the Virgin Birth and historicity of Infancy Narratives, it's not hard to tell who is representing Rome correctly."
Who exactly has denied "teachings like the Virgin Birth"?
Nick: your words sound to me very like your private interpretation of Roman Catholicism.
I don't think you have any basis to criticize Raymond Brown until your Magisterium clears up exactly what Dei Verbum means.
How is accepting a teaching as basic as the Virgin Birth being a true historical event a matter of private interpretation?
Interestingly, I found out the Catechism of the Catholic Church touches upon this very issue of doubting the historicity of the event:
"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". ...
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility...the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150
498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153"
In other words, it's inconceivable that the Church made this up.
I've never done any sort of extensive study into Brown's theology. I'll take your word for it that he denied the historical nature of the virgin birth.
On the other hand, are you positing that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an infallible document?
The Catechism is not infallible, but it references infallible documents and carries a distinct authority sanctioned by the Pope to be an overall reliable and clear exposition of all major aspects of the Faith.
"Private Interpretation of Scripture for Roman Catholics"
How about Private Interpretation of the Magisterium's Teachings for Roman Catholics?
Post a Comment