And a notorious liberal and modernist, but we won't talk about that.
And yet that's virtually all that's been talked about here, at least within the posts that respond directly to the article (instead of responding to other posters). All we've heard so far from the Catholic faction is how heretical Fr. Richard McBrien is, in both his beliefs and in his personal life. (Almost) no one is arguing with the central thesis of the article:
...many Catholics are led to believe that the papacy must always have been as they have known it, and most popes have been just like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries...The pontificates of a thousand years ago were very different from any that we have experienced in our lifetimes.McBrien goes on to provide several examples from history that attempt to support & therefore "prove" the thesis, but even those aren't disputed. At best, only Claud's post #67 even attempts to engage the thesis, and then IMO only indirectly.
Should I take the silence to mean that the Catholics on FR actually agree with Fr. McBrien's thesis?
“And a notorious liberal and modernist, but we won’t talk about that.”
I have often thought that good conservative Protestants have lots of stuff in common with lefty modernist wishy washy Catholics. That’s not to say that this makes those Protestants libs or anything, it’s just weird.
I mean, is there any Catholics out there who agrees with Protestants about the papacy,divorce and remarriage, birth control, the Blessed Mother, the celibate priesthood, the True Presence, etc., without also being WAY into abortion, priestesses in the Church, “gay marriage” and socialism?
Freegards