Almost without meaning to, Francis has shot ‘Humanae Vitae’ dead

The Church of the Holy Name ^ | April 16, 2016 | Clifford Longley

[RobbyS]

I agree with Robinson that the evidence can be interpreted as he proposes. Modern Biblical scholarship begins with men heavily influenced by the Enlightenment , with a rejection the the Patristic tradition. By an updated form of Arianism. Father Brown builds his structure on liberal Protestant scholarship. What I found interesting about Robinson’s alternative hypotheses, was that he came from a skepticism of the “consensus.” Brown is a product of the Ecumenism of the ‘60s. There too little skeptical of liberal Protestant thought. Too deferential to it. i came to my reading around 1990 after an encounter with a priest and biblical scholar from Louvain, Priests from there often filled in for chaplains at my base. I meet him and bought a copy of his book There I learned about the historical critical method and the rest of the rest of the approaches. There is too much cocksureness in it. It is the received wisdom, but I have come to the conclusion, ‘Taint necessarily so.”

As to proof texting, I agree, From any side. Catholic mariology is often too much for me. My high regard for her is based entirely on Luke. To me the Virgin Birth is infinitely more important than the sign given to Zachariah and Elizabeth. It is the foundation of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Her relation with Jesus seems to be so much closer to the Incarnate God than any other possibly could be. As a creature, of course,still infinitely far and in need of salvation. We are not saved the incarnation but by the cross.