March 26, 2008
Heresy
Creative Minority Report links to a piece by Fr. McBrien in the L.A. Tidings with a post on the art of dissent.
Joseph, however, disappears from the
New
Testament after the family's pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:42-52). He
probably died sometime before Jesus began his public ministry.
Because of the biographical gaps, a number of apocryphal writings
attempted to fill in the blanks. The Protoevangelium, or Infancy
Gospel, of James claimed that Joseph was already an aged widower with
children when he married Mary. How else to explain the many references
to Jesus' brothers and sisters in Mark 3:31; 6:3; Matthew 12:46; 13:55;
Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; 1 Corinthians 9:5; and Galatians 1:19?
New Testament scholar Jerome Neyrey, S.J., however, discounts the
various traditional explanations. The evidence for "stepbrother," he
writes, is "merely legendary" (referring again to the Infancy Gospel of
James 9:2 and 17:1).
On the other hand, the linguistic evidence for "brother" meaning
"cousin" is "very thin." We have but one example in the whole Old
Testament where a cousin might be called a "brother" (1 Chronicles
23:22). [See Father Neyrey's "brothers of Jesus," The HarperCollins
Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pp. 198-99.]
Patrick writes some good commentary and ends with:
Fr. Peter Phan is a hack because he got caught. Professionals like McBrien know that the truly great dissenters are like thieves in the night. You never even know they were there until you discover your faith is missing.
Can we play let's count the heresies? The fun game that you can play along at home. First off there is not only one example in the Old Testament since right off I can think of Abraham and Lot (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15). In Hebrew there was just no separate words used to make a distinction between brothers, cousins, uncle, and even non-relatives. There are plenty of examples of the same word being used for kinsmen. (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14). Even in the New Testament the general term " adelphoi" covers the same broad categories and certainly the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother.
Then he throws in the references to Protoevangelium to James as a red herring as if this discounts and throws into question anything. The only issues that this apocryphal writing makes is the Joseph had been previously married and so Jesus might have had step-brothers. Apologist in general hold this up as a possibility, but certainly not as the primary explanation to explain references to Jesus brothers. Especially since all of the people mentioned as Jesus' brothers are mentioned as sons of a different mother in other parts of the Gospel for example James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus.
So besides Fr. Richard McBrien being a incompetent apologist who can't even take the time to check up on his facts he is also doing something quite sinful in trying to slip this in while discussing St. Joseph's feast day. He is doing his best to cast doubt on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary something that must be believed in by all catholics with divine and Catholic faith. This is not an area of discussion, but a dogma of the Church. The Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). The Lateran Council of 649 also affirmed this and condemned those who did not hold it.
This I think also makes Fr. McBrian a heretic (not exactly a surprise to many)
Canon 751
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal
denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and
catholic
faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the
same; ...
Canon
1364
+1. With due regard for can.
194, +1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic
incurs
automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric,
he can
also be punished by the penalties
mentioned in can. 1336, +1,
nn. 1, 2, and 3. +2. If long lasting
contumacy or the seriousness of
scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including
dismissal from the clerical state.
While I don't play a Canon lawyer either on my blog or on television I would think that there could be some case to make that Fr. McBrien has committed heresy in his column, though I am sure there is some quibbling in the matter of whether this is obstinate doubt. But to undermine a dogma of the faith in a column published by a diocesan newspaper surely incur some serious action. That the diocese would be willing to print this is not surprising in the case of the Diocese of Los Angeles, but I think this is not a case of Fr. McBrien tip-toeing around the line, I think he has formally crossed it this time with an article that sounds like it was written by a Protestant.
Please pray for Fr. McBrien.
Posted by Jeff Miller at March 26, 2008 2:11 PM | TrackBackFr. O'Brien's book, Catholicism, was warped enough to be put on a proscribed list by the American Conference of Bishops, I believe...
I'd say that sounds like plenty obstinate!!
Posted by Mac McLernon email at March 26, 2008 3:56 PMHe is on sabbatical leave during the current academic year writing a one-volume ecclesiology, which will be published by HarperSanFrancisco in early 2008. http://theology.nd.edu/people/all/mcbrien-richard-p/index.shtml
A FOR SURE BURN THE BOOK.
What a barkless dog he has become. He can't even pose for a picture without his collar. No pun intended. I wonder if he will be returning in his collar to look official for a tv interveiw or two, maybe for CNN, to deliberately confuse the Church's teaching on abortion or voting for a pro death candidate.
"We need to start burning heretics again... :-)"
Can't - too much hot air would lead to increased global warming. Unless you purchased some carbon offsets first
Posted by LarryD email at March 27, 2008 7:32 AMPeople throw the term "modernism" around a lot whenever there is some form of dissent, but Fr. McBrien's book "Catholicism" should have been called "Modernism"--it was a more detailed explanation of the specific system of modernism than St. Pius X's encyclical--except McBrien promotes it while Pius condemns it of course.
Hopefully, his new book on ecclesiology will be blatant enough to get him censured like Hans Kung was for the same subject.
Posted by QC email at March 27, 2008 8:48 AMThis heretic who dons a priests collar when convenient and to achieve a greater audience and pulpit, has been at PUBLIC and obstinate heresy for decades. NOTHING is done about him!!! Nothing. He goes on with impunity. Nor is he alone in this public dissent that is continued scandal. Our Lord is NOT pleased.
Yes, we should pray for this obstinate dissenter and also for those who foolishly follow this very blind guide.
--
Too much hot air released! funny
OK, I'll play the game.
If Clan Joseph was supposedly so large, why no mention of them in the Gospels when the family had to trek all the way down to Bethlehem? Why wasn't anyone keeping an eye on pre-teen Jesus when they were leaving Jerusalem? And what kind of jerks are these to basically abandon stepmother Mary upon Jesus' death to be later cared for by a stranger to the family?
Posted by Bender email at March 27, 2008 11:45 AMThe indulging of accusatory passions does conservative Catholics no credit. Heresy is a formal charge, which, to my knowledge, has never been in the hands of lay people to level, prosecute, or for which to render penalties.
It is not heresy to have a faulty argument in linguistics.
Is McBrien actually coming out and saying Mary was not a virgin? Joseph Ratzinger himself posited the question once of how Jesus could be both fully divine and fully human were he the product of intercourse between Mary and Joseph.
Heresy?
Case dismissed for lack of evidence. Next!
Posted by Todd email at March 27, 2008 12:41 PMFr. McBrien needs to go, I'm in the Archdiocese of LA, and can not stomach myself to read his articles on the Mass, or anything else for that matter. Yes, I agree, is teaching heresy, allbeit in an implicit manner, not direct Heresy. The difference between Ratzinger and McBrien is very simple: Ratzinger prposed a question: How could Jesus be fully human and fully divine by produt of sexual intercourse?, the how being a very important part of the difference. Where as one was a question, the other refers to heretical sources (I don't believe HarperCollins is a Catholic Publisher, as I've seen Protestant works from them, corect me if I'm wrong). And if you've ever read Fr. McBrien's Catholicism, it's chocked full of errors (Vicar of Peter comes to mind immediately, the Papacy has never been refered to as that). Heresy straight out, no, Heresy an impict manner absolutely. Fortunately my heresy filter is strong to ignore McBrien)
Posted by Joe of St. Thérèse email at March 27, 2008 2:17 PMTodd- OK maybe he might not be termed a "heretic" but he sure is "incredulous". CCC 2089 Incredulity is the NEGLECT OF REVEALED TRUTH or the willful refusal to assent to it.
I agree with Jeff on this one.
Clan Joseph was large. You hear about several cousins and kinsfolk of Mary and Joseph, remember? And when they were coming back from the Temple, there was enough extended family around that Jesus could have been with, that Mary and Joseph didn't even worry about not seeing the kid until a good long time had passed!
Now, I have a big family, I think. But 'big enough to get lost in the caravan of them', it is not.
You can also read more about Joseph and Mary's kinfolk from the hills of Galilee in the church historian Eusebius. He goes into a fair amount of detail about their role in the church in Jerusalem, and how as members of the House of David, they had Romans on their tails at one point. (As I recall, they told the Romans that the Messiah had already come and he'd be king forever, so no more kings from the House of David. I can't remember whether it worked or not.)
Posted by Maureen email at March 27, 2008 8:59 PM"Apologist"? Fr. McBrien gets a rash at the thought of being considered a Catholic apologist.
Nay, the man wouldn't be caught dead unapologetically (rimshot!) defending a Catholic distinctive.
Yes, he's trying to cut the props out from under the dogma of the perpetual virginity. Nothing new, though--he did the same in the imprimatur-challenged "Catholicism." The problem is, he's doing it before a much larger audience, one that wouldn't dream of cracking the covers of his lugubrious couch-propper. No, not a heretic. But a heretic-enabler, to be sure.
Posted by Dale Price email at March 31, 2008 7:53 AMHeresy-enabling: the fine art of dumping a loo bucket on the faithful and convincing them that it's actually raining.
Oh, and with the obvious exception of John, no Pope has been named for one of the Twelve, either. So, the point of the column seems to be centered in the paragraphs cited.
"It's rain, I tell you--rain!"
Oh, and the slightly funny thing about this is that anyone who starts to doubt the PV won't become a McBrienist Catholic, but will end up in one of those conservative evangelical churches who offer a morality and political worldview uncongenial to his faculty lounge liberalism.
Posted by Dale Price email at March 31, 2008 8:21 AMLet's see the upcoming Gospel Reading for April 6th says something about those who enter the flock through some other way than Christ...
Posted by tad email at April 3, 2008 11:24 PM