Richard P. McBrien's Heretical Teaching
on The Church and The Mass

On page 577 ["Catholicism" 3rd./ed.] McBrien asks: "Did Jesus intend to found a Church?"
He answers:

"No, if by 'found' we mean some direct, explicit deliberate act by which Jesus established a new religious organization .... The majority of scholars today support the assumption that Jesus expected the end to come soon."

We can see here the results of his all-pervading notion of ignorance in Jesus. If He thought the end was soon, why bother to found any organization?

So some have said similarly that Peter was never a Bishop anywhere. If we mean that he did not set up a chancery and bureaucracy, of course not. But did Peter serve as the spiritual authority for Christians in any specific place? YES, at Antioch, and later at Rome.

So Jesus did establish an organization, to be entered by Baptism: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not will be condemned." We pause to notice the word save. It never has the silly meaning of infallible salvation by one act. There is no such thing. Kittel's authoritative "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" simply ignores that notion, since there is no Scriptural or intellectual basis for it. But save means: rescue from temporal danger; enter the Church; enter heaven. The second sense is also present here, as it is all through chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 of Romans.

Christ did set up authorities (without a bureaucracy again). In Matthew 16 He promised the Keys to Peter. In Mt. 18:18 He gave all the Apostles power to bind and loose, which in the language of contemporary rabbis meant to authoritatively tell what is right or wrong. He demanded for salvation the reception of the Eucharist. He set up a means to forgive sins after Baptism in John 20. Is all this just nothing? And He promised to be with His Church to the end of time? There is no hint He thought the end was just around the corner. That is based only on total denial of the oft-repeated teaching of the Church on His human knowledge. McBrien clearly does not bother about the repeated teachings of the Catholic Church that the human soul of Jesus from the very start saw the vision of God, in which all knowledge is present (for evidence: Wm. G. Most, "The Consciousness of Christ", 1980 - available from Catholics United for the Faith).

In line with his heretical view that Christ did not found the hierarchical structure of the Church, he says the sacraments were not directly instituted by Christ (pp. 798-89). We presume he means that the Church and sacraments just evolved in the next century - Jesus was too ignorant to foresee any such structure, and, as said above, He expected the end soon.

McBrien clearly is not concerned about the fact that the Council of Trent defined that Jesus instituted the sacraments (DS 1601), and especially that He instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper when He said, "Do this in memory of Me." (DS 1752).

As to the death of Jesus, McBrien erroneously says it was not a sacrifice of expiation - just a peace offering (p. 457).

McBrien here does not understand what a sacrifice is. We can gather the nature of sacrifice from the works of God in Isaiah 19:13 : "This people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me." So we see there are two elements: lips, that is, the outward sign; and heart, the interior dispositions.

On Holy Thursday the outward sign was the seeming separation of body and blood, standing for death, as if He said to the Father: "Father, I know the command you have given me: I should die tomorrow. Very good, I turn myself over to death - [expressed by this separation] - I accept, I obey." He made that pledge Thursday night, and carried it out on Friday. Then the outward sign shifted to the physical separation of body and blood.

In the Mass He goes back again to the same outward sign as on Holy Thursday. Thus, the Council of Trent defined that the Mass is a true sacrifice (DS 1751), obviously, for the same two elements, outward sign and interior disposition are present there again.

The fact that all forgiveness and grace was "bought and paid for" by the Cross, does not make the Mass empty. God willed that there be a Mass:

1. so that we might join our obedience to Him - the mere answering of prayers is not enough (cf again Is. 23:19)
2. Moreover, Romans 8:17 says that we are, "fellow heirs with Christ - we inherit with Him - provided that we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him."

But on both occasions, it is important to recall that the essential, the interior is His obedience to the Father, without which the external sign, even His death, would not redeem anyone. On the altar now He does not repeat that attitude of obedience, rather it is continuous from the first instant of His conception in which He said, Heb. 10:7 : "Behold I come to do your will, O God." — Incidentally, we note that even then He knew Who He was! That obedience was the theme of His whole life: "My food is to do the will of Him Who sent Me" (Jn. 4:34).

McBrien directly contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Mass which echoes all Catholic Tradition:

• Christ, 'holy, innocent and undefiled' (Heb. 7:26),
• knew nothing of sin (2 Cor. 5:21),
• but came only to expiate the sins of the people. (cf Heb. 2:17),
• In the sacrifice of the Mass (the Catholic priests) make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord (cf. I Cor. 11:26),
• the unique Sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering Himself once for all a spotless Victim to the Father (cf. Heb. 9:11-28).
• Lumen Gentium, 8 and 28

 

---