Vat II and Scriptural Study

The below is actually an excerpt from another post written in a different forum in response to specific questions regarding the role of Scripture with Vat II.  Consequently, this is not organized or written per se as an "essay" - the flow of the thought and the like may not be "clean and tidy" so to speak :)  There may also be some grammatical errors and the like.  Alas, there still seem to be some points here worth consideration by those in interested in the topics.  

Honestly, I am not sure biblical theology in of itself had much of anything to do with giving cause for Vat II. Actually, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - the principal Vat II document to address scripture - ends up being one of the shortest of all the Vat II documents. Tragically enough, it also ends up being one of the least properly understood dogmatic statements as well. Fitzmeyer, Raymond Brown, and other theologians with decidedly strong "historical critical method leanings" took an element or two out of that document WAY too far and ended up facilitating the movement of the Jesus of History, vs. Jesus of Faith "controversy" as it were. The damage wreaked by Enlightenment thought contaminating Protestant scriptural theology ended up gaining traction in Catholic circles and really messed with Catholic Biblical Scholarship - a plight we are still contending with in some respects. The Jesus Seminar and other similar "movements" are really assisted by the erroneous interpretation of Dei Verbum by Catholic Theologians. Related to this are the erroneous, fautly philosophical presuppositions, especially in regards to Epistemology and Metaphysics, which Cardinal Raztinger, himself, felt compelled to address in a writing or two of his, back many years ago. The incorporation of the critical historical methods to exegesis has been WAY out of control; these methods are just one of MANY factors involved in authentic and legitimate - and really the LEAST important of them all. In the general scheme of things, biblical scholarship, study, and doctrinal developments or pronouncements on Scripture are a VERY small aspect of Vat. II. Vat II was FAR more concerned about how to better "reach" and evangelize the world and pastorally guide the Universal Church towards a more fervent spiritual life than anything else. In fact, the "Universal Call to Holiness" - which I think is part of the "Church in the Modern World" - is arguably the MOST important statement from Vat II on the theological front. It "canonizes" if you will, the teaching that ALL, regardless of state in life, are obligated to try to become saints, be worthy of sainthood. The wording in this document speaks to the obligation of all faithful to seek and pursue the "perfection of charity". Modern Biblical Scholarship is actually BEST SERVED by the recent renewal in the study of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church in their contributions to biblical study. Those GIANTS were HUGE and with the Church Fathers, well, they actually speak in an "infallible manner" when they have unanimous agreement on a particular interpretation or understanding of a particular scriptural text - pretty remarkable and awesome stuff there