Biblical Textual Criticism And Theology

[mortify ii]

Peace be with you all,

 

Can a person accept some of the more extreme positions of textual criticism (e.g. anonymous authorship of the Gospels, question their historicity, etc.) and still be Catholic? Ironically what sparked this question was knowing a Catholic who majored in Theology and held these views. I wasn't quite sure how you could have theology if the foundation (i.e. scripture) is questionable!

[Nihil Obstat]

What does the oath against Modernism say about it? I believe there is something in there on that topic.

[mortify ii]

Interesting Nihil, thank you for pointing me to that that:

 

 

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

 

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

 

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

 

(...)

 

 I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

 

 

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

 

 

Why did we do away with this again?

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Why did we do away with this again?

Because pastoral. :proud:
 
Actually, what really interested me was in finding out what the oath says specifically about those who do not accept it. Were there any "let him be anathema" lines? Anything like that? 
And I see that such a line is not present. It is implicit, IMO, that a faithful Catholic should hold to the definitions in the Oath, and it clearly retains moral force if for no other reason than that it accurately represents Catholic doctrine.
One thing to note is that the Oath does explicitly refer to heresy.
"Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. "
And the Church teaches elsewhere what penalties as such as attached to heresy.
The Oath also refers to errors. In this context is error analogous with heresy? I do not know. I am inclined to think yes, but perhaps there is a distinction of which I am not aware.
"I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion."