Richard McBrien and the Church

[Catholic2003]

contemplative:

They don’t need a degree from Harvard or Yale to pooh-pooh his credentials and religious teaching.

No, they don’t. But what they do need is a mandate from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is the curial body that the Holy Father has established with the authority to revoke the credentials of a Catholic theologian.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gilbert Keith:

gottle of geer

If people don’t like what he says or writes, then they should ask him what he means by it, and not attack him behind his back.

I know exactly what he means by it. I never have to ask him what he means by it because he is always such an obvious fellow and I always attack him in public. Isn’t that what this is … a public forum?

Is it your view that priests are above being attacked for their views by the laity and that only other priests or bishops can publicly disagree with them?

It’s my view that no one should be attacked - not you, not him, not anyone. If there are differences about this or that, they should be dealt with in a way that is in the spirit of the Gospel, with no denunciations, personal attacks, or the like.​

McBrien’s column has been dropped from one diocesan newspaper after another. It would not surprise me if much of that dropping wasn’t helped along by a vigilant laity complaining in Letters to the Editor of his so-called nuanced theology.

What’s wrong with nuances ? There is such a thing as hounding people - sometimes people are attacked for no good reason, by people who lack the intelligence or the sympathy to understand what they are saying, even when those attacked have said nothing a Catholic is not free to say.​

The Church needs to hear the laity when the laity are fed up. And the bishops who are afraid to discipline their priests ought to take courage from the laity who vigorously demand it.

Maybe so - but it is not for the laity to tell the clergy what to do: the bishop governs the diocese - not the laity. So it would be wholly wrong for us laity to presume to do what we have no authority to do.​

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think that, at the very least, the Holy Office (sorry, the name’s easier) should start by issuing a statement that what McBrien teaches is contrary to the Church’s teaching, etc., then they could give him every chance to back peddle before ratcheting it up until they finally excommunicate him. I hope he comes back, but what he teaches tears at the fabric of the Faith.

 

[stanley123]

RyanL:

Still want to read about Prof. Richard McBrien’s heresies? Check out what the schismatics have to say about him.

I am a bit confused here. In support of your position, you are quoting the Angelus of the SSPX. Weren’t all the bishops of the SSPX excommunicated by the Pope? Whereas Father McBrien is in good standing with the Pope and the Church? I thought that a Catholic was not supposed to go along with schismatic groups. Remember, their bishops have been excommunicated. Catholics are supposed to go along with the Pope and with the local bishop in full communion with the Pope, such as our Cardinal Roger Mahony who publishes the column of Father McBrien each and every week in the diocesan newspaper the Tidings.

 

[Catholic29]

stanley123:

I am a bit confused here. In support of your position, you are quoting the Angelus of the SSPX. Weren’t all the bishops of the SSPX excommunicated by the Pope? Whereas Father McBrien is in good standing with the Pope and the Church? I thought that a Catholic was not supposed to go along with schismatic groups. Remember, their bishops have been excommunicated. Catholics are supposed to go along with the Pope and with the local bishop in full communion with the Pope, such as our Cardinal Roger Mahony who publishes the column of Father McBrien each and every week in the diocesan newspaper the Tidings.

I for one don’t go along with the SSPX, but on the some tolken it doesn’t mean I accept all of Father McBrien’s teachings as gospel truth either, whether he is in good standing or not. It all comes down to if Rome says one thing and McBrien something else, I will go with Rome.

As for Cardinal Mahony, isn’t he the fellow who puts on the rather risque Los Angeles Religious Edcation Conference each year? Photos of the event can be found here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42903&page=1&pp=100&highlight=Religious+Education+Conference

 

[RyanL]

## Maybe so - but it is not for the laity to tell the clergy what to do: the bishop governs the diocese - not the laity. So it would be wholly wrong for us laity to presume to do what we have no authority to do. ##

Not according to Prof. McBrien. Just though it was ironic that you would defend Prof. McBrien with theology that he denounces.

stanley123:

I am a bit confused here. In support of your position, you are quoting the Angelus of the SSPX. Weren’t all the bishops of the SSPX excommunicated by the Pope?

Yes, they were. To clear up your confusion about my position, the SSPX are wrong about a great many things, but they are right about a great many things as well. For example, they believe in the seven sacraments, that Christ established one Church, and that Jesus was a hypostatically joined God-man. We shouldn’t reject right thinking because of the source; if it’s right, it’s right. I quoted the SSPX because they did their homework on Prof. McBrien, and quoted from his work extensively. If you would prefer a less well documented CA response, simply go to the main page’s search bar and type in “mcbrien”. You’ll get a lot of hits. One of *my *favorites is this one.

The bottom line is that he takes a contrary position to the Magisterium on just about anything he can get away with (birth control, priestly celibacy, administrative decisions, papal infallibility, etc.), and is not being unfairly attacked. One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. He is saying to the eye that he doesn’t need it, because he is sufficient as a hand. That is just plain wrong.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[m134e5]

The idea that the Pope or the body of bishops could define something or authoritatively proclaim something which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the faithful is a theological fiction

This rejects a dogma of the Church- the dogma of papal infallibility. It fits his definition of heresy.

 

[stanley123]

m134e5:

This rejects a dogma of the Church- the dogma of papal infallibility. It fits his definition of heresy.

But is it a formal rejection of a dogma?

 

[stanley123]

Catholic29:

I for one don’t go along with the SSPX, but on the some tolken it doesn’t mean I accept all of Father McBrien’s teachings as gospel truth either, whether he is in good standing or not. It all comes down to if Rome says one thing and McBrien something else, I will go with Rome.

As for Cardinal Mahony, isn’t he the fellow who puts on the rather risque Los Angeles Religious Edcation Conference each year?

So the bottom line on this is that we should accept what the SSPX says, but not what Cardinal Mahony says? This seems odd, since the bishops of SSPX have been declared excommunicated, but Cardinal Mahony is in full communion and in good standing with the Pope.

 

[RyanL]

stanley123,

You’re still making the same mistake of rejecting a truth because of the source, and not because it is “not a truth”.

To continue this discourse, you will have to see past your prejudice.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

No, they don’t. But what they do need is a mandate from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is the curial body that the Holy Father has established with the authority to revoke the credentials of a Catholic theologian.

If one’s words are consistent with dissent, or heresy, one does not need a formal edict from Rome to use logic and reason to draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

[fix]

stanley123:

That may be true. But does a layperson have the right to change the definition of heresy on his own? According to the theologian from the Catholic university of Notre Dame, a heretic is one who formally rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church.

That one is not formally convicted of heresy does not mean one’s words are not heretical or consistent with heresy. Is it prudent fore anyone to listen to his words and go away with the idea his words are in union with Rome?

 

[RyanL]

More Prof. McBrien quotations from the schismatics:

“Not all men are called to the Church, nor is the Church the ordinary means of salvation” (p. 76).

“There is no advantage to being a member of the Church in terms of ultimate salvation” (p. 207).

For, according to McBrien, the Church is not “primarily in the salvation business as understood by traditional theology” (p. 229).

The Church is not needed because “A person who loves according to the imperative of Christ is already saved; he is already within God’s Kingdom as it presently grows and develops” (p. 163).

For McBrien, whether or not a person attends Church is a matter of indifference: “One cannot be a Christian apart from the Christian community. And one is a member of the Christian community whether or not he attends services in a specific church . . . baptism and explicit faith in the Lordship of Jesus constitute such membership” (p. 180).

Since McBrien holds that the Church’s doctrinal teachings are not the object of faith, and that one need not assist at Mass, then it follows that, as he puts it, “one can sever his relationship with the Roman Catholic Church without necessarily surrendering one’s faith” (p. 177).

I’m not sure how far he has to go to be “formally heretic”, but I’d say that this is pretty close…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

stanley123:

Also, he has rather impressive credentials according to

http://www.nd.edu/~theo/faculty/mcbrien.html

“

And the apostles had doctorates from where? Did Christ have an advanced degree? Should I accept the ideas of anyone because he has “credentials”, no matter how incorrect such ideas are?

 

[decn2b]

I have asked clergy often why he isn’t removed from our paper…the reponse is “readership is up” How can they tell if readership is up if ALL registered parishoners get a copy of the paper sent to their house regardless of if they pay for it or not. The only way to get off the mailing list is to move away. EVEN if you ask them to stop sending the paper to your house they still send it.

My solution…WE are getting a fireplace

 

[RyanL]

If it’s educational pedigree you’re looking for, you might take a look into these folks…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[stanley123]

fix:

That one is not formally convicted of heresy does not mean one’s words are not heretical or consistent with heresy. Is it prudent fore anyone to listen to his words and go away with the idea his words are in union with Rome?

That might be true, but the question concerned the definition of Father McBrien, which was a formal rejection of a dogma of the Church. I suggested that what was missing was the formal part.

 

[stanley123]

The latest column of Father McBrien gives high marks to the present Pope. Father McBrien has nothing bu good words for the present Pope and is especially happy about his recent long and cordial personal meeting with Father Hans Kung. By the way, didn’t the Pope give a much longer private audience with Father Hans Kung, than with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX?

 

[fix]

stanley123:

The latest column of Father McBrien gives high marks to the present Pope. Father McBrien has nothing bu good words for the present Pope and is especially happy about his recent long and cordial personal meeting with Father Hans Kung. By the way, didn’t the Pope give a much longer private audience with Father Hans Kung, than with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX?

I really can’t draw any conclusions from either meeting, but I do know Christ associated with sinners to draw them to correction and repentence.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

gottle of geer

I said:
The Church needs to hear the laity when the laity are fed up. And the bishops who are afraid to discipline their priests ought to take courage from the laity who vigorously demand it.

You said:
## Maybe so - but it is not for the laity to tell the clergy what to do: the bishop governs the diocese - not the laity. So it would be wholly wrong for us laity to presume to do what we have no authority to do. ##

For the record, I am not telling the clergy what to do. I am expressing a view that I think needs to be heard. The bishops are entirely free to ignore what I or other laity say. But you seem to be one of those Catholics who would take freedom of speech from the laity when they are every bit as Catholic as the bishops, and in some cases even more so. The laity do not govern the Church, but they have a voice and they should be heard … rather than told, as you seem to be saying, to shut up and mind their own business.