Raymond Brown, Mary and Development of Doctrine

 The late Raymond E. Brown was one of America's eminent Catholic exegetes. I remember once reading bishop of Los Angeles (Roger Mahony) exclaiming that he considered Brown to be the brightest Catholic exegete ever produced from American soil. 

  I was re-reading Brown's Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine¹ in which he once again² brings forward the "centrist view,"³ in particular concerning Mariological themes and the development of doctrine. 

 This view would hold that much of Roman Catholic Doctrine (i.e., Mariological Dogmas, Mono-episcopacy, etc) are not found in Scripture. The reason they are not found directly taught in Scripture is due to the historical literary context in which Scripture was composed. For example, Paul's letters to the Thessalonians was written to a specific group of people in the mid first century which suffered from particular and specific needs, needs and problems Paul sought to correct. In no way then is Scripture to be thought of as a systematic theology encompassing every point of Christian theology explained in full detail. Thus, there exists the idea of development of doctrine, most classically displayed in the process of codifying the Trinitarian definition of the Christian Godhead. 

 Brown's point is then - that the New Testament need not directly contain any specific texts on the Assumption of Mary or her Immaculate Conception for these Dogmas to be true. Simply put, the Church through a process or development of thought and reflection on the person of Mary, slowly advanced in its formulation of these doctrines - all the while being Divinely led by the Holy Spirit in this illumination. 

 Of all the Catholic explanations on the development of doctrine I consider this centrist position the most satisfying, being the most faithful exegetically and historically. My personal view over development of doctrine is close to Brown's however slightly modified.  The real question becomes then, are these Mariological Dogmas true and faithful developments or are they merely pious popular cultic legends that have been more or less accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?

 

_________________

[1]. (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1985). 

[2]. Brown has written extensively on Mariological themes as they pertain especially to the Lucan so-called "infancy narrative," The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1977), ------., Mary in the New Testament (ed. by R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), ------., The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973). 

[3]. That is, the centrist Catholic view as opposed to the "liberal" view which would reject all together any historical accuracy to the biblical accounts of the Virginal Conception of Jesus and also in contrast to the "ultraconservative" view which would argue that Mariological dogmas such as the Assumption and Immaculate Conception can actually be detected in Scripture.

 

 

Doubt: Movie Review

   It has been a while since I have purposely went to the movies on my own accord to watch a good film. Such recent movies such as Wolverine Origins and Terminator Salvation has only reinforced my strict belief that good cinema has perished from mainstream film. What the masses want in today's day and age is 4 or 5 second scenes full of mindless brutality, drooling monsters or ramped up sex scenes. It is a shame that entire generations have been raised now on pulp fictions, spiderman's and Juno's. Forever gone are the long tracking shots of say Wells' "Touch of Evil," or the ingenious writing of a drama film such as Hitch's "Vertigo." 

     So then with abject horror and the sure sense of let down I was given the film "Doubt." This is truly a marvelous film on so many different levels. But I must limit my comments lest I give away too much of the film. Two different things came to mind when I finished watching this film. The first is that popular audiences undoubtedly saw yet another film about Catholic corruption, with the added flare of wonderful acting and a good plot line. On a deeper level though - I saw this film as a powerful parable about the contrast of the old tradition versus the new school of modernity, within Catholicism. A parable on what the world considers acceptable and backwards and unprogressive. A parable on good versus evil itself. 

 

O'Connor, Wyclif and the Eucharist

 Re-reading James T O'Connor's work on the Eucharist The Hidden Manna¹ he makes the intelligent notation that Wyclif was a thoroughgoing Aristotelian and thus rejected Transubstantiation. O'Connor cites Schillebeeckx in support.² This is an interesting point against those detractors who frequently state the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist being simply a false philosophical child of Aristotle apud Aquinas. O'Connor writes:

     Wyclif is defended at times on the grounds that his errors are due not so much to his theology as to his inadequate philosophy.³

 O'Connor then records footnote #62 in which he states:

     Schillebeeckx...correctly sees Wyclif as being a prisoner of rigid Aristotelian philosophy. "Faithful to the authentic, historical Aristotelianism, which could not admit any division between substance and accidents, he denied transubstantiation." Wyclif's dilemma is a good reminder of the fact that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not Aristotelian. St. Thomas had used Aristotelian categories to delineate the mystery, but only after profoundly modifying Aristotle's philosophy. [Emphasis his]

__________________

[1]. The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist (2nd ed., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005). The relevant discussion on Wyclif can be found in pages 123-30. I consider this work among the best written from the Catholic tradition on the Eucharist, highly recommended.  

[2]. E. Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), whose discussion on Wyclif can be found in pages 48-49. 

[3]. O'Connor also notes that Wycilf's error was due to his misreading of Scripture. 

 

Yeago, Scripture and the Early Church.

 

     David Yeago¹ in his article "The Presence of Mary in the Mystery of the Church,"² writes in footnote #9 (in the context of retrieving some semblance of an acceptable Marian theology, in relation to Christology):

    

...the goal of faith and theology is not to see how little of Scripture we can take seriously and still be saved; the goal is the maximum of integrity in taking seriously and holding together in our understanding the whole canon of testimony with which the church has been provided by the Spirit. After all, the New Testament canon itself is superfluous to what is "necessary to salvation," since the foundational apostolic preaching went on without it. 

  Consider also the fact as most scholars would agree that our earliest Gospel (Mark) was written some thirty years after the crucifixion (and this is based on the most conservative scholarship, critical scholarship would date Mark post 70-AD). Scholars contend that Paul's letters were written earlier than this (1 & 2 Thess being the earliest) but even these were directed and kept in possession of, particular regional churches (i.e., Corinth). 

 In other words the early Christian Church went largely without a complete canon of the New Testament (as we know it today comprised of the twenty-seven books) for most of its history. It was not until centuries after the first Apostles that the canon was decreed (Athanasius's letter). What they did possess was the Old Testament (that is what the writers of the New Testament have in mind when they speak of "Scripture") as well as the apostolic oral traditions (2 Thess 2:15, et al). 

 My question to Protestants is, taking all of this in mind, how is one to defend still the proposition of Sola Scriptura if,

     (a) The earliest Christian Church did not have in its possession the "New Testament"even to proclaim "sole authority" from?

 

     (b) The earliest patristic interpretive tradition (i.e., the Patristic Fathers) time and again teach that Scripture can only be correctly understood under the guidance of the Catholic Regulae Fidei and that Scripture alone is not the "sole authority" for the Christian but rather the "authority" is Scripture only when interpreted via their patristic interpretive tradition (i.e., "apostolic tradition")?

______________

[1]. Professor of Systematic Theology at Lutheran Theological Seminary, South Carolina and member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America denomination. 

[2]. In the excellent book by Protestant and Orthodox scholars, Mary Mother of God (Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 58-79.

  

New Paper at Paradoseis Journal

  I have submitted a new paper at Paradoseis Journal, entitled "Angels or Humans in Revelation 1:20? A Re-Examination Under the Comments of Hilary of Poitiers" where I put forward a unique view of this difficult hermeneutical question. 

Great Jazz on a Saturday Afternoon.

 I love good music, from Gregorian Chant through Down South Swamp Blues and everything in between. Recently however I have been listening to a lot of Jazz from Yusef Lateef, Miles Davies and especially The Dave Brubeck Quartet. Paul Desmond is a master of the alto sax and flaunts his mastery and skill with it doing an improvisational riff in every different rendition of "Take Five." Consider this take:

Desmond is the epitome of white-man coolness. Calm, collected and sustained professionalism. Consider the next rendition and the different imrov here:

 What seamless passion. Dave Brubeck comes off well on the piano as well, what we are missing though is a spotlight on Joe Morelli on drums! Not too worry-

___________________________

 R. E. Aguirre

 Paradoseis Journal

Origen and the History of Justification: Book Review

     This is a short review of Thomas Scheck (professor of Pastoral Theology, Ave Maria University) book, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans, (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008). 

     This is an elegantly written work by a scholar that is up to date on the best of Origenian and patristic secondary literature, which is in my opinion the best (new) book I read in 2008. It is an important treaty on the massive influence of Origen's commentary on Romans (Scheck is the first English translator of Rufinus's Latin edition of Origen's commentary) on all subsequent theologians of note, whether in a positive direction (i.e., Augustine, Pelagius, William of St. Thierry, Erasmus) or negative (Luther and Melanchton). 

     The thesis of the book is that Origen has had a much more influential role that is usually ascribed to him (especially on Pauline interpretation and soteriology/justification) most notably in the Catholic tradition. Scheck graces us with important correctives of among others (J. N. D. Kelly, Karl Adam, etc) on various topics, and also acts as a fair and balanced observer of the Protestant / Catholic debate over justification. It is also one of the best historical theological accounts of the doctrine of Justification around (as touching on Origen and his particular influence). 

     The book is highly technical and definitely assumes some familiarity of historical theology and patristics by the reader (and is not cheap - $60) but it is worth the price for the specialist or for the educated layman who wants to break into the realm of academic study. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

____________________

 R. E. Aguirre

Paradoseis Journal

New Paper at Paradoseis Journal.

 Alvaro Raymundo has submitted a new paper at Paradoseis Journal regarding the correct translation of επισκοπης in 1 Tim 3:1.