The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[Chrysologus]

Let me add this: Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible, as the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/i]explains (the [i]Catechism [/i]itself is a book of Catholic doctrine, but not infallible):

"Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles ... and to the bishop of Rome ... when, [i]without arriving at an infallible definition [/i]and without pronouncing in a 'definitive manner,' they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals" (paragraph 892).

Now I'm not exactly sure what kind of "divine assistance" is meant since the possibility that the magisterium's decision will be [i]wrong [/i]is allowed, and God is not the author of falsehood. Also, if it is capable of error, then it won't necessarily lead to a "better understanding of Revelation." The [i]Catechism [/i]also states that we're supposed to adhere to such pronouncements with religious assent, but if they [i]can [/i]be wrong, and we [i]believe [/i]they are wrong, how can we assent to them? Moreover, if everyone assented to them, they would never change. I'm really not sure how this paragraph is to be understood, but it does (it seems to me) admit the existence of Catholic teachings which may be objectively wrong.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 12:03 PM'] "Christ left to Peter not only the universal Church, but the whole world to govern."
- Innocent III

Here is a pope teaching that he is king of the world. But we don't believe this anymore. He was not teaching infallibly. [/quote]
Well, we still believe, or at least I do, that the Pope should have authority over secular leaders in so far as their decisions touch areas of morality. Political leaders who promote evil should be made to repent and do penance just like any other Catholic.

[quote]Likewise, the more recent popes who riled against biblical "modernism" (which is to say, looking at the Bible with both faith [i]and [/i]reason instead of faith alone) were also not teaching infallibly.[/quote]
Yes they were. Check [i]Lumen Gentium §25[/i]. Total Biblical inerrancy was certainly taught by the bishops in communion with Peter's sucessor. As the language and the format of the above decrees shows, these Popes were teaching authentically in a matter of faith and morals. They certainly had the moral unanimity of the bishops behind them. Finally, again, as the language in the decrees shows, these Popes presented their teaching as one to be held definitively. Besides, the council's of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II all teach the same doctrine so the extraordinary magesterium is behindthis one as well.

[quote]I'm sure the same is true of the Church's fierce condemnations of usury that lasted throughout the Middle Ages. That's what the whole point of my list was.[/quote]
The Church's teaching on usury has not changed at all. The nature of money has changed, rendering loaning money on interest no longer a usurious practice. See David Palm's article, [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646"]The Red Herring of Usury[/url].

[quote]In any case, the Church [i]now [/i]believes that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....[T]he Jews should be not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this view followed from holy Scripture" (Vatican II, [i]Nostra aetate[/i]).[/quote]
This is not a change in belief. The Council Fathers are rejecting the notion of the collective guilt of the Jewish nation through a curse which God supposedly placed on them in Matt 27:25. This notion is not part of the Tradition of the Church. However, Jews share equally with Pagans, Muslims, and Christians in guilt for the death of Christ by virtue of their personal sins.

[quote]It's well known that the Church now fully supports ecumenism, yet less than 100 years ago it condemned it as something which Catholics could never participate in.[/quote]
Indeed. What level of magesterial authority does this new ecumenical orientation have, however?

[quote]But again, my point is not to condemn the Church but to show that some Catholic doctrines (not solemnly defined dogmas) change.[/quote]
You are quite simply wrong. All Catholic doctrines are immutable and absolute. And no matter how many bishops and seminary professors abandon them they remain immutable and absolute. Christ did not cease to be God when 80% of the bishops of the Catholic Church embraced the Arian heresy.

[quote]The doctrine of total biblical inerrancy is not contained in the Bible itself, and contradicts the Bible as the Bible clearly contains numerous internal historical contradictions or inaccuracies, which mind-bending apologetics cannot believably answer. The phrase "death by a thousand qualifications" comes to mind.[/quote]
You should try reconciling the contradicitons. It's really not all that hard. Quite often one is left with a very detailed description of what happened, more detailed than either biblical narrative. For example the Stations of the Cross reconciles Luke 23:26 and John 19:17.

[quote]While the Church frequently speaks out against heretical tides of thought within her ranks (support for abortion, religious indifferentism, priestesses, etc.), it has, since Vatican II, done absolutely [i]nothing [/i]to stop historical biblical criticism, and has seemingly encouraged it numerous times (in the NAB, for instance). To me, this is all the indication I need to believe that the doctrine of total biblical inerrancy, like so many other false doctrines before it, has fallen to the wayside in light of the Church's ever-increasing understanding of the faith, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is with us always and guides us into all truth.[/quote]
Or it is an indication that a great portion of the hierarchy has abandoned the authentic patrimony of the Church and emraced ideas antithetical to the faith.

[popestpiusx]

Very well said, Hananiah!!

[p0lar_bear]

I would like to add that historical biblical criticism and Biblical inerrancy are not mutually exclusive. Historical criticism is allowed, but "Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written" (Dei Verbum 12). One cannot approach the Scriptures with a "hermenutic of suspision." Just as faith and reason are not opposed, scholarly study of Scripture (including historical criticism) is not opposed to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I can provide more information on the magisterial documents referring to the inerrancy of Scripture if you would like.

[Hananiah]

I agree entirely that historical criticism has a legitimate domain and use. It's much easier to understand Christ's parables with a little background in the culture of 1st century Palestine, for example. Also, archeology can shed a great deal of light on passages which are obscure, such as David's conquest of Jerusalem.

[p0lar_bear]

These are excerpts from some things I've written on the inspiriation and interpretation of Scripture that may be helpful....

[quote]In the Church’s study of divine revelation, the focus is not so much on what so much as who is revealed.  In divine revelation, God reveals himself to man.  The words of revelation give voice to the deeds of God in the world.  The deeds in turn give proof to the words.  Both the words and the deeds of divine revelation show forth the person, will, and mission of God himself.  The purpose is not just to give a history or a set of rules by which to govern one’s life, but to give men knowledge of God beyond the reach of human wisdom and draw them into the divine life.  God’s revelation is a self-donation of himself to man; as such it calls for a reciprocal response from man.

Because divine revelation is God coming down to meet man, it is necessarily incarnational.  In order to meet man where he is, God must, in a way, limit his infinity so as to be comprehensible to man.  God must reveal himself slowly and in a manner that allows man to grasp, if only partially, what is being revealed.  Jesus, the Living Word of God, became man so as to communicate himself to us, bring us salvation, and offer us a share in the divine life.  In the same way, in Scripture is the written Word of God communicated in human language so as to allow God to reveal himself to his people, carry on his plan of salvation, and draw his people into his divine life.  Therefore, while truly coming from God divine revelation, including Scripture, has a very real human character.

God’s desire to communicate in a manner intelligible to men does not end in this incarnational aspect.  Recognizing man’s need to learn and for growing understanding, God’s self-revelation is progressive and developmental.  He did not reveal himself fully from the beginning, but built revelation upon revelation so that in due course he revealed the whole.  The history of the Israel is a history of God bringing salvation to his people.  Beginning with creation, he showed himself piece by piece, building on the knowledge that his people had already acquired by his previous works, until the culmination of revelation in Jesus Christ.

Given this understanding of divine revelation, one can now better understand the Church’s view of Sacred Scripture.  Understanding revelation as a self-revelation of God which shows his desire for an intimate relationship with man allows the reader to approach Scripture with the proper disposition.  Recognizing the developmental nature of revelation puts each part in its proper context.  Understanding Scripture as a cooperation of human and divine is key to being able to fully and properly study it.[/quote]


[quote]A true understanding of the meaning of Scripture is based first on a proper understanding of the nature of Scripture.  Scripture is more transcendent than a merely human work, literary or historical.  It is also more incarnational than divine dictation.  Because both God and man are true authors, it is inherently both human and divine.  Neither aspect can be legitimately disregarded when interpreting a passage of Scripture.

Understanding the relationship between the two authors gives us insight into the relationship between the literal and spiritual meanings of Scripture. God has always been understood to be the true author of all Scripture.  Scripture is the Word of God in human language, not the word of man with divine influence.  God was intimately involved in every aspect of the production of the text.  This, however, does not mean that the human authors are inconsequential in the outcome of the text; they are also true authors.  The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Sacred Scripture.  This inspiration is understood as a divine influence, not divine possession or divine dictation.  They wrote all that God wanted to be expressed and nothing he didn’t, but the manner in which God’s message was expressed was significantly affected by the culture, history, language, and worldview of the human authors.

The dual authorship is in part responsible for the dual meaning of Scripture.  One, the literal, is more identified with the human, while the other, the spiritual, is identified with the divine.  This differentiation is not entirely correct because God intends both meanings.  However, traditionally, that meaning attached to the intention and communication of the human author is referred to as the literal meaning or sense.  This can be discovered by studying the genre, historical circumstances, language, etc.  The meaning that lies beyond the scope of such methods is called the spiritual sense.  In order to discover the true meaning of Scripture we must not only investigate both the literal and the spiritual meanings, but also whether and in what way they relate to each other.

In the last century there has been no lack of attention paid to the literal meaning. The literal meaning can be defined as that which the human author directly intended and which is conveyed by the words.  Because it speaks to the intention of the human author, not just the words as they are, this definition of the literal meaning resists reduction to the plain meaning or a literalistic interpretation.  It does, however, make evident the necessity of employing diachronic and synchronic methods study in order to understand the human author and the literary techniques he used to convey meaning.  Given the human aspect of Scripture, it is right and indeed necessary to study the texts of Scripture in light of the human author.  This means that use of historical, anthropological, sociological, literary, and linguistic methods of textual study are not only legitimate but also required to gain a full understanding of Scripture and the message contained therein.  Understanding socio-cultural norms, common usage of language, literary techniques, and the historical development of the text give insight into the literal meaning of the text as intended by the human author and the divine.

The study of Scripture, however, cannot end with these methods, valuable though they are.  The scientific study of Scripture must be coupled with faith in the living God who inspired the texts.  There must be a recognition that these works are not merely the works of man, but truly the word of God transmitted through men and in human language.  As the Word of God, Scripture contains mysteries beyond the reason of man and, therefore, must be read in faith and by the light of the Spirit who inspired it.  The legitimate recognition of the human must not exclude or deny the divine.  God must be affirmed as the true author of all Sacred Scripture.

The meaning revealed by understanding the divine nature of Scripture is the spiritual meaning.  This is the understanding that goes beyond the letter to see the Spirit in whom and by whom the letter was written.  It is the whole of Scripture illuminated by the Gospel of Christ.  A true spiritual meaning is not a forced comparison of the Old and New, but something inherent in both.  In order to understand and appreciate Scripture as the Word of God, one must seek to understand it spiritually, i.e. in the light of Christ.  Strictly speaking, the spiritual sense of Scripture is the New Testament re-reading the Old in the light of Christ.  However, the spiritual sense goes beyond just that.  It includes not only the allegorical, but also the tropological and anagogical, i.e. the moral and the eschatological.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 27 2004, 02:14 AM'] Since the NAB is so incredibly widely disseminated throughout the American Catholic Church, and since it promotes so many ideas inimical to the Catholic faith, I have felt it necessary to produce a catalogue of its heterodox statements, which contrasts the NAB to the traditional teachings of the Church as well as informs the reader how to refute its charges of error. I have finished Genesis so far. As this is a huge project which I am undertaking, I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/NAB.htm"]The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB[/url] [/quote]
That's a great idea!! I have similar feelings toward the NAB and had thought of doing the exact same thing, but I always come up with inspirations like that but never actually get around to doing it.

I like your Genesis comments so far. When you are done they should start including your commentary to the commentary with every NAB that is printed.

Peace

[Chrysologus]

p0lar_bear, I would be interested in those documents you mention.

Upon further reflection, I think that we have both been exaggerating this issue. I don't think this is a clear-cut case of yes/no. Theology can be tricky and I think it's wrong for me to say your view is "fundamentalist" or for you to say that mine (and that of the NAB translators) is "modernist." Honestly, I don't feel I have enough theological training to evaluate the exact (and no doubt evolving) meaning of inerrancy according to various papal and conciliar teachings, but I do have a few more things to say in my defense:

The fact that the NAB footnotes point out conflicting passages doesn't necessarily mean that the translators are saying that they can't be reconciled.

The historical-critical method of biblical interpretation was approved by Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Vatican II.

The essence of this method is an evaluation of the genres and contexts of the biblical writings. Where the Bible is found not to be a presentation of literal history (for example, the contents of the first eleven chapters of Genesis), it is entirely reasonable to expect that somone looking for literal history in it would come to erroneous conclusions (this faulty interpretation leads to the fundamentalist attack on evolutionary theory, for instance). Trying to reconcile these literal discrepencies is therefore unnecessary and intellectually dishonest.

Also, in a more general sense, I don't understand why many Catholics insist on trying to reconcile everything contained in every papal encyclical. [i]Encylicals are not infallible documents.[/i] If Pius X contradicted Pius XII, so what?

Oh, and also, again in a more general sense, I am amazed at the way traditionalists speak so highly of the infallible magisterium of past centuries and yet at the same time show so much disdain for the one of today. Perhaps you could give the American hierarchy the benefit of the doubt and accept the fact that it is [i]your [/i]teacher and not the other way around.

Regarding Hananiah's other comments:

I don't think any Catholic would disagree with the fact that the pope should counsel politicians and governments in terms of morality, but that is not what Innocent III meant. He thought his supreme, heavenly, religious authority as Pope also included a supreme, earthly, secular authority. Catholics no longer believe this (although I believe a certain member from here long ago did).

It does not seem "manifestly evident" that the ordinary magisterium taught total biblical inerrancy. For that matter, I'm not sure that it's manifestly evident that the ordinary magisterium has ever taught anything besides the fundamentals of the faith, like that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It is extremely difficult to qualify what has been taught in this manner, by its nature, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits. And, given that, as far as I know, you have no theological training (neither do I, which is why I realized this morning that it's absurd for me to take this silly, little debate on this silly, little web site so seriously), I do not think you're qualified to say that the ordinary magisterium has taught inerrancy in the way you understand it, the way that apparently contradicts the [i]official American Catholic Bible[/i].

Church Councils never condemn beliefs which no one ever professed, but rather those which abounded. Thinking the Jews were collectively guilty of Christ's death ("Christ-killers") and accursed by God was an extremely common belief during the Middle Ages, and even today. Surely you are aware of this fact. It's why the Council's statement was so important, and why John Paul II publicly apologized on behalf of Catholics for the terrible things we had done to Jews in the past, things which were fueled by this false doctrine.

Ecumenism has the full support of the magisterium. It was explicitely proclaimed by a document of Vatican II and an encyclical of John Paul II. In fact, it has been a major theme of his pontificate. Just the other day he had an important meeting with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople on the feast of Peter and Paul, part of his effort to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

[MorphRC]

HOLY HECK! A lot of Info... Kool. I might save this page to my Favs

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jul 1 2004, 12:27 AM'] Oh, and also, again in a more general sense, I am amazed at the way traditionalists speak so highly of the infallible magisterium of past centuries and yet at the same time show so much disdain for the one of today. Perhaps you could give the American hierarchy the benefit of the doubt and accept the fact that it is [i]your [/i]teacher and not the other way around.

[/quote]
Polar bear,
I think he just called you a traditionalist. Are you going to let him get away with that.

[thicke]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 27 2004, 12:04 PM'] I think the Douay-Rheims Bible is the best. You can view it online at:
[url="http://www.drbo.org/"]http://www.drbo.org/[/url]
(Very easy to use but has links to SSPX sites.)

Since it's so expensive to get in print, I read the NAB. Does anyone have a link to an inexpensive D-R? [/quote]
Here's another on line D-R translation:

[url="http://www.scriptours.com/bible/"]http://www.scriptours.com/bible/[/url]

You can buy it at Tan books:

[url="http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:browse/category_id/9/"]http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/sho.../category_id/9/[/url]

The whole Bible hardbound is $55. The New Testament softbound is $16.50

You can also download this program:

[url="http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/"]http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/[/url]

VulSearch includes both the D-R and Vulgate for reading and comparison.

[MorphRC]

I heard the SSPX in America has come back into communion with JPII. I read it off their site.

[p0lar_bear]

ummm.....

perhaps I ought to post more....becasue you obviously completely missed what I was saying.

The first quote was from a paper I wrote [i]against[/i] fundamentalist interpretation. I favor the use of historical critical methods. From the second excerpt:

[quote]This means that use of historical, anthropological, sociological, literary, and linguistic methods of textual study are not only legitimate but also required to gain a full understanding of Scripture and the message contained therein.[/quote]

Also, if you'll read my earlier posts, I don't really have a big problem with the NAB translation (well, the earlier versions anyway). I've also repeatedly shown strong support for the current Magisterium.

I do think that Biblical study does not end with the historical critical method.

[quote]The study of Scripture, however, cannot end with these methods, valuable though they are.  The scientific study of Scripture must be coupled with faith in the living God who inspired the texts.  There must be a recognition that these works are not merely the works of man, but truly the word of God transmitted through men and in human language.  As the Word of God, Scripture contains mysteries beyond the reason of man and, therefore, must be read in faith and by the light of the Spirit who inspired it.  The legitimate recognition of the human must not exclude or deny the divine.  God must be affirmed as the true author of all Sacred Scripture[/quote]

I don't have all the documents with me right now, but it may be good for you to read Vatican II's [color=blue][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"]Dei Verbum, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation[/url][/color]

Edited July 1, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[DojoGrant]

Are we sure that its not just the St. Joseph edition we should be protesting? Does the imprimatur extend to the footnotes, or just the text translation? I agree on the footnote problems, and commentary, but I'm not sure that necessarily extends to the text translation.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jul 1 2004, 08:11 AM'] Polar bear,
I think he just called you a traditionalist. Are you going to let him get away with that. [/quote]
:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:27 PM'] The fact that the NAB footnotes point out conflicting passages doesn't necessarily mean that the translators are saying that they can't be reconciled. [/quote]
That's not all they do. The footnotes explicitly say that various parts are contradictory.

[quote]The historical-critical method of biblical interpretation was approved by Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Vatican II.[/quote]
Of course, and I don't think anyone here is denying that. However, every single one of the Popes who approved of historical criticism attached the qualification that all conclusions reached therewith which found there to be errors of any sort in the Bible were to be rejected immediately.

[quote]Also, in a more general sense, I don't understand why many Catholics insist on trying to reconcile everything contained in every papal encyclical. [i]Encylicals are not infallible documents.[/i] If Pius X contradicted Pius XII, so what?[/quote]
I agree that they are not infallible. But they are solemn exercises of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, and when 5 Popes in a row denounce the same idea in no uncertain terms, with the approval of the world's bishops, their teaching gains the status of infallibility.

[quote]Oh, and also, again in a more general sense, I am amazed at the way traditionalists speak so highly of the infallible magisterium of past centuries and yet at the same time show so much disdain for the one of today.[/quote]
The Magesterium is still infallible. However the ordinary teaching of America's bishops is not infallible since it contradicts much of what used to be taught, and since their views are not shared by a moral unanimity of the bishops around the world. Even if, as during the Arian heresy, 80% of the worlds bishops become heretics, that will not make their ideas infallible.

[quote]I don't think any Catholic would disagree with the fact that the pope should counsel politicians and governments in terms of morality, but that is not what Innocent III meant. He thought his supreme, heavenly, religious authority as Pope also included a supreme, earthly, secular authority.[/quote]
I believe the Pope should do more than council. He should have ultimate juridical authority and be able to overrule all immiral decisions of secular leaders. Secular leaders should be subjected to the social reign of Christ the King, which means their actions should be restrained and guided by biblical and traditional moral norms. When they try to throw off this yoke, the Pope should put it back on them.

[quote]It does not seem "manifestly evident" that the ordinary magisterium taught total biblical inerrancy. For that matter, I'm not sure that it's manifestly evident that the ordinary magisterium has ever taught anything besides the fundamentals of the faith, like that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[/quote]
Every Church Father taught it. Every Pope who ever wrote about Scripture taught it. Besides, ecumenical councils have taught it. It is infallible. Your case is simply bankrupt.

[quote]Church Councils never condemn beliefs which no one ever professed, but rather those which abounded. Thinking the Jews were collectively guilty of Christ's death ("Christ-killers") and accursed by God was an extremely common belief during the Middle Ages, and even today.[/quote]
This belief has been imputed to Catholics by the Jews. I remember Pat Buchanan, who went to Catholic school before Vatican II, writing about how the first time he heard the phrase "Christ-killer" was when a Jew told him that that's what he believed. Only about two of the Church Fathers said anything to the effect that the Jews were an accursed people. The Council Fathers at Vatican II were not repudiating old beliefs, but simply reaffirming what Catholics already believed.

[quote]Ecumenism has the full support of the magisterium. It was explicitely proclaimed by a document of Vatican II and an encyclical of John Paul II.[/quote]
The document of Vatican II is vague. It encourages inter-religious dialogue, but does not define what it means by dialogue. Does it mean dialogue in the sense of trying to convert people by talking with them and sharing the gospel, or dialogue in the sense of inter-faith gabfests where no one tries to convert anyone else? I opt for the former interpretation.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jul 1 2004, 01:11 PM'] Does it mean dialogue in the sense of trying to convert people by talking with them and sharing the gospel, or dialogue in the sense of inter-faith gabfests where no one tries to convert anyone else? [/quote]
Yeah, they meant inter-faith gabfests. C'mon man. Any attempt to dialogue is an attempt to convert. This should be common sense.

[Hananiah]

Well, it seems like a great deal of the hierarchy has interpreted it as inter-faith gabfests. Remember [i]O Presente do Homem, O Futuro de Deus[/i]? How about all these talks with the Muslims, who never call any of the meetings themselves, because as they say "you have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn"? Did anyone preach [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus[/i] at Assisi?

[p0lar_bear]

I think inter-religious dialogue can sometimes be "let's figure out some things we agree on and stop killing each other." It's hard to evangelize an area when you aren't allowed in or allowed to speak about Jesus if you do get in.

Also, instead of beginning with "die you heretic scum!" It's "OK, you recognize that there is a God, lets go from there." The great evangelist saints followed this pattern, "baptizing" existing elements and building on the truths that the people did recognize.

Oh, and do try to show respect for the hierarchy.

[Chrysologus]

None of my comments were directed at p0lar_bear; I don't think he's a traditionalist. I liked what he had to say.

Your interpretation of ecumenical dialogue as being aimed at converstion doesn't square with the way the Church actually conducts ecumenism. Again, I think you are trying to teach the Church rather than letting it teach you. Dialogue is just that: dialogue, or "gabfests" as you call them. We try to bring about a better understanding between people of different faiths and see where unity can be restored without people having to convert. I again mention the meeting just the other day between John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The document [i]Dominus Iesus [/i]deals with this issue pretty thoroughly if I recall. So who's ignoring the teaching of the magisterium now?

Okay, so then you also think the pope should be King of the world, as it is. Interesting. I don't think the Holy Father would agree. But then again, it sounds like you need to school him in ecumenical, and possibly biblical, theology as well. I mean, after all, you are a well-renowned and well-studied theologian, even moreso than he is. Wait...

Finally, if Pat Buchanan said it, it must be true!