Some confusion in regards to apostles

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 2 2005, 06:41 AM'] Yes Paphnutius,

You might want to update your thinking on those last two points by reading:

"The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" by Fr. Raymond E. Brown. I believe this book carries the Imprimatur.

LittleLes [/quote]
You are seriously overplaying the Impriamatur card. Do you know what that means? It means that something is free of doctrinal or moral error. Not that the Papcy supports all of the claims made in it, or supports everything the book said.


Fr. Brown stated that there lacked biblical evidence that the Virginal Birth is a physical fact. Is that a doctrinal error to state that the Bible only mentions the Virginal Birth in two infancy narratives? No. Is it unorthodox to carry it to such extremes to throw doubt on something like that? Yes. He states that the authors may of ment that it not be taken literaly. That is his theory, and it is unorthodox. The Tradition of the Church has always (as far as I know) held that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.

His book recieved the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat because it is free of doctrinal error, not because the Holy See endorses his theories.

[LittleLes]

Hi Paphnautis,

Thank you for admitting that Fr. Raymond Brown's writing have been found to be free of doctrinal or moral error.

Interesting that you are trying to maintain the "what the Church has always taught " criteria for historical truth.

LittleLes

"The Church has always taught that it is infallible, and since it teaches this, this is infallibly taught." Is this your basic thesis?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 3 2005, 09:55 AM'] Hi Paphnautis,
Thank you for admitting that Fr. Raymond Brown's writing have been found to be free of doctrinal or moral error. [/quote]
I mentioned that earlier in the thread, you just were not paying attention. I actually did so twice. Review the thread.

[quote]Interesting that you are trying to maintain the "what the Church has always taught " criteria for historical truth.[/quote]

That is not what I am trying to maintain. I am saying that for a Catholic to be orthodox, one must assent to dogma and doctrine. Fr. Brown leaves something to be desired in some of these areas. He does not straight out deny them, but leaves that door wide open almost inviting others to go through it. I do not recall, at least, saying that the Church says X so X must be true beyond doubt. I did not turn this into a discussion about Fr. Brown's accuracy, you keep trying to do that. I am simply stating that he is not a very orthodox Catholic.

[quote]"The Church has always taught that it is infallible, and since it teaches this, this is infallibly taught."  Is this your basic thesis? [/quote]

Save that for the infalliblity thread. I did not bring up infalliblity. I simply stated that it is in our [b]creeds [/b]our [b]profession of faith [/b]to believe in X, Y, and Z. Once again you try a slide of hand to a different topic. That is distracting and annoying to say in the least. Please stick to the topic at hand. If you reject my definiton of orthodoxy please feel free to offer your own.