Author Topic: Challoner footnotes are not Scripture, although they are useful (Read 883 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** July 16, 2014, 05:53:46 PM »

.

All too often, when we search for longstanding and credible writings that support our own hypothesis, we might forget the relative reliability of sources.

Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781), for example, compiled and wrote voluminous footnotes to the Bible, and these are most useful for our benefit, but we cannot put his footnotes on an equal level of authority to that of Scripture itself, even though it was Scripture that he was referring to.

Post
.

Quote from: [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32715&min=5#p1

This post[/url]]
This is what the Challoner Douay commentary on Matthew 16:18 says:

By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

Well, you can say EXACTLY THAT about Vatican 2 and what has been going on ever since.

So, either the Church defected or SV is true.

While the Challoner footnotes to the DR are helpful, it's important to remember that you're reading footnotes and you are not reading Scripture. There is a difference between the opinions of a commentator and the infallible word of the biblical author.

Here, there's Our Lord speaking to St. Peter, "And I say to thee: Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Henceforth, we cannot consider the indefectibility of the Church without regard to this passage.

Then, you have Bishop Challoner's commentary on that passage: "By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ."

But Challoner is not writing as a prophet, nor is he pope, nor is he quoting any number of Fathers and Doctors. He is offering his own, private opinion as a Bible scholar, and a good one at that. His hopes, expectations and yearnings are virtuous and commendable. But they are not infallible.

Take that comment a few short centuries into the future and assess why it would have been necessary to produce the Syllabus of errors by Pius IX, or Pascendi by St. Pius X, among other writings. If neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever could prevail over the Church, why would Pope Saint Pius X warn us all about the ominous umbrella hazard to the faith of Catholics that is Modernism? And why would his definitive encyclical make no mention whatsoever of how Challoner had assured us there is nothing to worry about because the Church is indefectible?

If "neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ," then why would Pope Saint Pius X not only warn us that Modernism is a threat to the Church, but that if allowed to propagate like the malady that it is, it would become the wreck and ruin of all religion?

Furthermore, why would Our Lord have said in Luke xviii. 8: "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" And why would not Bishop Challoner have referenced or acknowledged this apparent contradiction to his footnote on Matt. xvi. 18?

.
.
.
.

In case it's not quite obvious enough yet, try putting Challoner's words together with Our Lord's and see if it makes any sense:

And I say to thee: Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2014, 06:19:36 PM »

Catholic exegesists should not be disparaged unless one can levy multiple exegesist against the exegesists with whom they have an issue. Challoner isn't off the mark here, you just don't understand what the word "prevail" means. To prevail is to win in the end. The team that prevails is the one that wins the game, and they can be down by fifteen runs at a given point and still prevail. God, being God, can appear to be down by seemingly insurmountable odds and He will prevail.

The problem with disregarding the commentators is that one is bound to merely dismiss that with which they disagree. There will be no system to it at all. They will advocate reading it "as it is written*" when it favors them, and then resort to commentators and authorities when "as it is written" doesn't favor them.

Try reading this "as it is written:"

"And call none your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven (Mat. 23: 9)."

*I loathe this phrase, one which has been made popular by a Feeneyite frequenter of these forums. It has about it an air which suggests that one who reads something "as it is written" reads it in a more pure manner, or reads it as it was intended to be read, where as those who seek the context of a given scriptural passage and Patristic exegesis or otherwise approved commentaries are not reading it "as it was written." Such phrasology is a protestant polemic, using false piety and zeal to encourage a prideful approach to religion whereby the individual is elevated to a false competency in matters that have been entrusted to the Church and her pastors.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2014, 10:13:34 PM »

.

Three statements in a row -- if they're all telling the same story, they ought to add up:

And I say to thee: Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

The first and the last are words of Our Lord in Scripture, while the middle sentence is the footnote from Bishop Challoner, written as a commentary to the first sentence, "And I say to thee:..."

How can all three of these be speaking the same message regarding the future of the Church? We have to look for ways of re-thinking the middle sentence (Challoner) to make it "fit" the position it occupies, above, between these two Scripture quotations. If we take Challoner's note separately, and take it at face value, does that give us the same meaning that we derive when we try to make the meaning "fit" between these two Scripture passages?

.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2014, 11:02:24 PM »

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2014, 11:18:52 PM »