Liberal Heretic Fr. Richard McBrien
Two Protestant apologists have been commenting on my page recently. They are Sam Shamoun and Ken Temple. I just want to say to the two of you that I deeply respect your intellect and am happy that you read this blog. I’m also thankful for the website answering-islam.org. I make use of the website quite often.
I may have touched a nerve when I wrote against James White claiming he was inconsistent in apologetic methodology, specifically in regards to quoting liberals. We have gone back and forth whether Dr. White is inconsistent or not. I want to skip over that part of the debate and look at the larger issue. After all, James White is only one person and truth doesn’t stand or fall with him. Let’s forget about him and look beyond.
To Mr. Temple and other Protestants who believe in quoting from Catholic liberals to refute Catholic doctrine:
I want to ask: What will you gain by quoting a liberal?
I am a volunteer for a local pro-life group. I go out onto the street, hand out pro-life literature and engage pro-choice people in dialogue. The goal is not to debate them and crush them in debate but to get them to change their mind. In other words, to get them to come over to our side. I’ve seen it happen before my eyes. This is a very delicate process. This pro-life group doesn’t let you volunteer until you’ve gone through their training program. This is because winning people is more important than defeating them in an argument. It’s also a lot harder to do.
Why do Protestants dialogue with Catholics? They do so because they want us to see that Catholicism is false and that we should join their Protestant Church.
Let me describe a bit about myself.
I attend the Traditional Latin Mass. I pray 15 decades of the rosary every day. My favorite Pontiff is Pope Pius IX. My favorite catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent. My favorite theologians are St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of Damascus, and St. Augustine of Hippo.
Do I sound like a liberal?
No, I’m not. How will quoting a Catholic liberal help convert me to your faith?
I’m not going to say: “Wow, this Catholic modernist scholar who denies Biblical inerrancy says that 1 Corinthians 3 doesn’t teach purgatory. I guess the Church is wrong on Purgaorty. Time to become a 5-point Calvinist.”
You might think that I’m too extreme and a lost cause either way. That’s not true at all. I’m willing to follow truth wherever it leads, especially when my soul is on the line.
Let me show you how to dialogue with a Catholic. Here are three examples of how you can attack my faith. You can say any of these:
- When we look at the writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, we see that Rome didn’t have a monarchial Bishop in the early second century. Let’s look at some quotes.
- The top Church Father St. Augustine denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. Let me show you some quotes.
- Romans 4 clearly teaches Sola Fide. Let’s go through it verse by verse.
Though I would dispute every one of these claims, they are a good way to dialogue with Catholics. We would be forced to give a defense. Contrast that with this:
A modernist Catholic scholar who denies inerrancy says that 1 John 5:16 doesn’t refer to mortal and venial sin.
Do you see the difference? Which do you believe will help the Catholic in realizing that his faith is wrong? If you quote the first three, we’re forced to defend our position. We need to respond with precise quotes and primary sources.
Let’s turn the tables. Two Catholics approach you for dialogue. One says the following:
Sola Fide is false because New Perspective theologians such as James Dunn and NT Wright say that Paul never taught this doctrine.
Would this argument carry any weight with you? No, traditional Protestants value scripture and are not going to be convinced by quoting liberal modernists who don’t believe in inerrancy.
The second Catholic says the following:
Sola Fide is a false doctrine because there are several statements in the Pauline Epistles where he outright denies the doctrine. Let me show you the verses.
Would not the Protestant say that liberals who don’t believe in Inerrancy carry no weight when debating doctrine? Would not the Protestant be forced to deal with the verses brought up?
Why? Because Scripture is an authority to Protestants, liberals are not. I should point out that I’ve rebuked Catholics for quoting New Perspective theologians as authorities when debating Protestants.
So Mr. Temple, can you quote liberals to us?
Quote them as much as you want, but if you ever want to convert us to your faith, those quotes are not going to get you anywhere.
Hi Allan,
Sorry I did not see this until now. (August 17, 2016)
You never commented on my last comment at your article entitled:
http://allanruhl.com/james-white-is-extremely-dishonest-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously/#comment-485
Why and how do liberals like Richard McBrien even make it to the priesthood and they should be defrocked if they become liberal latter; and it seems to me that there is no way that they could have a ontological imprinting on their soul (seems like a crazy doctrine)- as was pointed out by Dr. White and you mentioned that in your latest article, on Development of Doctrine.
My comment:
Hi Allan,
First, let me say again I really enjoyed your other article about Islam and “the majority of scholars say” this or that – which Paul Williams and others like Shabir Ally use that method all the time. That was very good!
There is a difference between Dr. White using RC liberals in debates with RCs; vs. Shabir Ally using liberals in debates of Islam vs. Christianity. The difference is in the reasons behind the liberals in the Shabir Ally example, and the reasons for the conclusions of the specific instances in the liberal Roman Catholic commentators. The reasons and worldview presuppositions of liberal attacks on Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. (which Muslims use against Christians, but it is inconsistent because of their own commitment to supernatural claims for the Qur’an and prophethood of Muhammad.)
But the reasons behind why those RC liberals can be used in quotes about Purgatory are not because of an anti-supernatural bias, but rather because they did not see those doctrines as present, even implicitly, in Scripture. One can still hold to a belief in miracles and supernatural inspiration of Scripture, yet criticize the exegesis of those dogmas and doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church admits are not in Scripture, but are based more on tradition and the development of doctrine through the centuries.
See the difference?
I do understand the formal definition of the Infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I (1870). (ex cathedra; only when the Pope intends for it to be an infallible dogma of faith (doctrine) and morals for all the Roman Catholics worldwide, etc. Other statements or opinions or the Pope’s moral life are not part of the infallibility dogma. I get those distinctions.
Many say it has only been exercised once or twice in history. (1854 and 1950; but that automatically seems to say that there are 3 times – as 1870 was also an instance of that, by definition.) Some Roman Catholic apologists claim that infallible dogmas were only done 8 times in history, some say 16 times, some say 2 or 3 times, in history. With that divergence of opinion, how are we to really know which one is right; and what practical value the Infalliblity dogma has, since no one is absolutely certain how many infallible dogmas there are?
The problem is that the way the typical Roman Catholic seeks to win a Protestant is by claiming that the Pope and his authority and jurisdiction and charism of infallibility, and power to be a living voice that can walk into the room and say “thus says the Lord” (Tim Staples has said this many times; and my friend Rod Bennett, author of “Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words”, argues this way) – that ability and giftedness would be a positive thing to solve all the disagreements within Protestantism and bring unity to Christianity; so the argument goes. If a person is persuaded by that; he then expects it to be real, but then he finds out that it is not real; it has only been exercised 2 times, or 8 times, or 16 times in history. What good is that claim?
Hello,
I didn’t comment on the last blog because I figured I’d just get to the meat of the issue. Say that you were justified and it wasn’t inconsistent to quote liberals, what would it gain. I wanted to get to the real issue.
You said: “Why and how do liberals like Richard McBrien even make it to the priesthood and they should be defrocked if they become liberal latter; and it seems to me that there is no way that they could have a ontological imprinting on their soul (seems like a crazy doctrine)- as was pointed out by Dr. White and you mentioned that in your latest article, on Development of Doctrine.”
First of all, McBrien was ordained in 1962 so he would have had to take the Oath Against Modernism before his ordination. An oath that he broke before Almighty God. He was unfortunately never defrocked but that just shows how bad things are in the Church when it comes to combating modernism. It’s a sad state but no different than other times in history such as in the 4th Century where 90% of the bishops were Arian or even during the NT period where you had the Galatian heretics and the super apostles preaching heresy.
Regarding the imprint on the soul, that is a highly complex doctrine. Btw, in case you didn’t know, Baptism and Confirmation leave the same mark which is why ordination, baptism, and confirmation are done only once in a lifetime whereas other sacraments can be repeated such as confession or the eucharist. I didn’t discuss it in the post because that was not the point of the post. The point was to show that James White has no problem with doctrinal development if he believes in it. Exclusively Catholic doctrines are not allowed to develop but if White agrees with it, then it can take as long as it needs to develop.
One last thing regarding your initial response. Please don’t put the arguments of other Catholic apologists in my mouth. I have told you this on blogging theology but for some reason you just repeat it. I am my own person. In fact, I have criticized other Catholic apologists on this blog. Google “Jimmy Akin” and see how I criticize him for his views on certain issues. If you want to argue against me, bring up either official Church teachings from the magisterium or stuff that I have written. I’ll stand behind both of those.
One more thing Mr. Temple. I respect you and other Evangelicals who love Jesus and love scripture. James White does a lot of good against homosexual apologists, defending scripture and arguing against Islam. I just need to defend my faith from him. All of us agree that these issues matter and I’m glad that we can all be civil about this. I admit that I was a bit too harsh last time with White but this time I just stuck to the issues.
If you liked my post on Islam and the majority of scholars, here’s another one that you as an Evangelical might enjoy.
http://allanruhl.com/epiphany-a-christians-change-of-heart-mind-over-same-sex-marriage-by-michael-coren/
I love book reviews btw, lol