What do you think?
Rate this book
The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism
“The Church is a lucid, balanced, and readable book—a work of integration that is always reasonable, well informed, honest, and deeply hopeful.”
—Commonweal
In The Church, renowned religious historian and Vatican expert Richard P. McBrien offers a sweeping history of the evolution of the Roman Catholic Church, its influence and power in an ever-changing world. From Jesus’s apostle Peter to Pope Benedict XVI, The Church is a remarkable achievement that delves deeply into the past and the future of Christianity’s largest branch—in fact, the largest religious institution in the world—exploring its politics, doctrines, and the way the Roman Catholic Church views itself.
—Commonweal
In The Church, renowned religious historian and Vatican expert Richard P. McBrien offers a sweeping history of the evolution of the Roman Catholic Church, its influence and power in an ever-changing world. From Jesus’s apostle Peter to Pope Benedict XVI, The Church is a remarkable achievement that delves deeply into the past and the future of Christianity’s largest branch—in fact, the largest religious institution in the world—exploring its politics, doctrines, and the way the Roman Catholic Church views itself.
528 pages, Paperback
First published September 2, 2008
23 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
January 28, 2009I don't have time to waste reading literature that is at odds with orthodox Catholic teaching, so I didn't spend more than an hour reading Fr. Richard McBrien's new book The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism. First off, no one should trust a book regarding doctrine that does not have an Imprimatur. An Imprimatur is an official declaration by a bishop that a work is free from error in matters of doctrine and morals. In rare cases this declaration by a bishop can be overruled by the Vatican (papal primacy). The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism does not have an Imprimatur.
After skimming over the introduction, I went straight to the section Peter and the Papacy. The first odd thing I found was the term Vicar of Peter. This is the first time I had ever seen this term, so I Googled it. I didn't find any Catholic sites that used the term; however, I did find a number of Protestant Fundamentalist sites that say the pope should not be called the Vicar of Christ but the Vicar of Peter.
Fr. McBrien goes on to say:
"Peter could not have had successors: first, as the traditional co-founder with Paul of the apostolic see of Rome (although, more precisely, they are the co-founders of the apostolic authority of Rome); and, second, as one of the Twelve who were personal witnesses of the Risen Lord. These are unique, nonrepeatable, and nontransmittable aspects of Peter's apostleship."
I've read arguments like this before, but not by people claiming to be Catholic; again, words like this usually come from Protestant Fundamentalists.
I decided to see just what Fr. McBrien thought of papal primacy, so I checked the index for "keys of the kingdom." This is what I found:
"This brings us to the especially sensitive topic of the primacy, which exists in churches other than the Catholic, but in different forms. Quoting St. Augustine, the document points out that the Lord did not give the keys only to one man, but to "the church in its unity." Peter's preeminence was rooted in his representing and sustaining the Church's universality and unity. It is the whole Church, Augustine insisted, "which has received the keys of the kingdom in heaven." When Christ spoke directly to Peter, Peter "at that time stood for the universal church" (III.46, quoting from Augustine's Sermon 295, on the feast of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul)."
Primacy is only a "sensitive topic" for those who, like Fr. McBrien, don't fully accept papal primacy.
Fr. McBrien's quoting of St. Augustine didn't sit well with me, so I got out my breviary and went to June 29:
"As you are aware, Jesus chose his disciples before his passion and called them apostles; and among these almost everywhere Peter alone deserved to represent the entire Church. And because of that role which he alone had, he merited to hear the word: To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not one man who received the keys, but the entire Church considered as one. Now insofar as he represented the unity and universality of the Church, Peter's preeminence is clear from the words: To you I give, for what was given was given to all. For the fact that it was the Church that received the keys of the kingdom of God is clear from what the Lord says elsewhere to all the apostles: Receive the Holy Sprit, adding immediately, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain, they are retained."
The differences are subtle, but important. It sounds like Fr. McBrien is suggesting that Peter received the keys on behalf of the Church, where as St. Augustine is really saying that Peter received the keys because "he stood for the Church's universality and unity" (a different translation of St. Augustine's Sermon 295). The words of St. Ambrose seem fitting here, "Where there is Peter, there is the Church!"
Fr. McBrien's misinterpretation of St. Augustine once again sounds like a Protestant Fundamentalist. Why is it that a "Catholic" theologian at times sounds more like a Protestant Fundamentalist? It could be that he is not really teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. The term heterodox comes to mind.
It is "Catholics" like Fr. McBrien that cause me a lot of grief. Some Protestant Fundamentalists will see what he writes, and then come to me and say, "See, this is what the Catholic Church teaches." Then I have to try to convince them that the Catholic Church really does not teach these things, which may prove to be difficult because Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and I'm an unschooled nobody.
I don't want to give the impression that this book is made up solely of Protestant Fundamentalist ideas. There are some ideas, such as the ordination of women, that are contrary to both orthodox Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism. As well, there are many ideas that are truly Catholic, which, unfortunately, adds to the confusion of the uninformed reader as to which ideas are orthodox and which ideas are heterodox.
In short, I would not recommend this book to faithful Catholics.
It is fitting that I write this today, the Feast of Sts. Timothy and Titus, for which the antiphon of the Canticle of Zechariah is a follows:
"Proclaim the message, insist on it in season and out of season, refute falsehood, correct error, call to obedience, but do all with patience and sound doctrine."
I had never heard of Fr. McBrien before coming into contact with The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism, so I decided to check a few Catholic websites that I know I can trust as orthodox for information on him. I found a really good article on Catholic Answers titled Dealing with Dissent: Fr. Richard McBrien by Ronald J. Rychlak.
In this article I learned that Fr. McBrien is an outspoken dissident theologian that enjoys a great deal of popularity with the secular media. He writes a syndicated column that appears in several diocesan newspapers, although some bishops have pulled this column from the newspapers in their diocese. Fr. McBrien has also written over twenty books on the Catholic faith, of which his book Catholicism is considered, by some, a classic.
"The first edition of Catholicism was published in 1981. Almost immediately the doctrinal committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out serious problems with it and asked McBrien to make revisions. The third edition was released in 1994--still without an imprimatur. After studying it for two years, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices released a statement indicating that the book was inaccurate or misleading in describing Church teachings on the Virgin Birth, the ordination of women, and other issues. Not only had McBrien failed to remove the previously noted ambiguities from the previous editions, but he had introduced new ones.
"The bishops' report stated that McBrien minimized Catholic teachings and practice:
"On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error."
"The bishops also questioned the manner in which McBrien made use of dissenting theologians, and they noted sections of the book where the presentation is not supportive of the Church's authoritative teaching. They warned that "for some readers it will give encouragement to dissent."
"The bishops cautioned that McBrien reduced the teaching of the pope and bishops to "just another voice alongside those of private theologians." In so doing, he created the impression that the official teachings of the Church have validity only when they are approved by a "consensus" of theologians, including Protestant ones. In short, McBrien elevated the theological arguments of dissenting theologians to (or above) the level of the magisterium. The bishops concluded that Catholicism should not be used in theological instruction. But given its title, McBrien's position of authority at Notre Dame, and his high profile as a Catholic commentator, readers of Catholicism are likely to believe they are reading authentic Catholic teaching. That is not the case. As one reviewer said of the third edition, "Whatever else it may do, it is likely to leave Catholic students doctrinally illiterate.""
I strongly recommend that you read this article in its entirety if you have any intention of reading anything that Fr. McBrien writes:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005...
After skimming over the introduction, I went straight to the section Peter and the Papacy. The first odd thing I found was the term Vicar of Peter. This is the first time I had ever seen this term, so I Googled it. I didn't find any Catholic sites that used the term; however, I did find a number of Protestant Fundamentalist sites that say the pope should not be called the Vicar of Christ but the Vicar of Peter.
Fr. McBrien goes on to say:
"Peter could not have had successors: first, as the traditional co-founder with Paul of the apostolic see of Rome (although, more precisely, they are the co-founders of the apostolic authority of Rome); and, second, as one of the Twelve who were personal witnesses of the Risen Lord. These are unique, nonrepeatable, and nontransmittable aspects of Peter's apostleship."
I've read arguments like this before, but not by people claiming to be Catholic; again, words like this usually come from Protestant Fundamentalists.
I decided to see just what Fr. McBrien thought of papal primacy, so I checked the index for "keys of the kingdom." This is what I found:
"This brings us to the especially sensitive topic of the primacy, which exists in churches other than the Catholic, but in different forms. Quoting St. Augustine, the document points out that the Lord did not give the keys only to one man, but to "the church in its unity." Peter's preeminence was rooted in his representing and sustaining the Church's universality and unity. It is the whole Church, Augustine insisted, "which has received the keys of the kingdom in heaven." When Christ spoke directly to Peter, Peter "at that time stood for the universal church" (III.46, quoting from Augustine's Sermon 295, on the feast of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul)."
Primacy is only a "sensitive topic" for those who, like Fr. McBrien, don't fully accept papal primacy.
Fr. McBrien's quoting of St. Augustine didn't sit well with me, so I got out my breviary and went to June 29:
"As you are aware, Jesus chose his disciples before his passion and called them apostles; and among these almost everywhere Peter alone deserved to represent the entire Church. And because of that role which he alone had, he merited to hear the word: To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not one man who received the keys, but the entire Church considered as one. Now insofar as he represented the unity and universality of the Church, Peter's preeminence is clear from the words: To you I give, for what was given was given to all. For the fact that it was the Church that received the keys of the kingdom of God is clear from what the Lord says elsewhere to all the apostles: Receive the Holy Sprit, adding immediately, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain, they are retained."
The differences are subtle, but important. It sounds like Fr. McBrien is suggesting that Peter received the keys on behalf of the Church, where as St. Augustine is really saying that Peter received the keys because "he stood for the Church's universality and unity" (a different translation of St. Augustine's Sermon 295). The words of St. Ambrose seem fitting here, "Where there is Peter, there is the Church!"
Fr. McBrien's misinterpretation of St. Augustine once again sounds like a Protestant Fundamentalist. Why is it that a "Catholic" theologian at times sounds more like a Protestant Fundamentalist? It could be that he is not really teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. The term heterodox comes to mind.
It is "Catholics" like Fr. McBrien that cause me a lot of grief. Some Protestant Fundamentalists will see what he writes, and then come to me and say, "See, this is what the Catholic Church teaches." Then I have to try to convince them that the Catholic Church really does not teach these things, which may prove to be difficult because Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and I'm an unschooled nobody.
I don't want to give the impression that this book is made up solely of Protestant Fundamentalist ideas. There are some ideas, such as the ordination of women, that are contrary to both orthodox Catholicism and Protestant Fundamentalism. As well, there are many ideas that are truly Catholic, which, unfortunately, adds to the confusion of the uninformed reader as to which ideas are orthodox and which ideas are heterodox.
In short, I would not recommend this book to faithful Catholics.
It is fitting that I write this today, the Feast of Sts. Timothy and Titus, for which the antiphon of the Canticle of Zechariah is a follows:
"Proclaim the message, insist on it in season and out of season, refute falsehood, correct error, call to obedience, but do all with patience and sound doctrine."
I had never heard of Fr. McBrien before coming into contact with The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism, so I decided to check a few Catholic websites that I know I can trust as orthodox for information on him. I found a really good article on Catholic Answers titled Dealing with Dissent: Fr. Richard McBrien by Ronald J. Rychlak.
In this article I learned that Fr. McBrien is an outspoken dissident theologian that enjoys a great deal of popularity with the secular media. He writes a syndicated column that appears in several diocesan newspapers, although some bishops have pulled this column from the newspapers in their diocese. Fr. McBrien has also written over twenty books on the Catholic faith, of which his book Catholicism is considered, by some, a classic.
"The first edition of Catholicism was published in 1981. Almost immediately the doctrinal committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out serious problems with it and asked McBrien to make revisions. The third edition was released in 1994--still without an imprimatur. After studying it for two years, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices released a statement indicating that the book was inaccurate or misleading in describing Church teachings on the Virgin Birth, the ordination of women, and other issues. Not only had McBrien failed to remove the previously noted ambiguities from the previous editions, but he had introduced new ones.
"The bishops' report stated that McBrien minimized Catholic teachings and practice:
"On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error."
"The bishops also questioned the manner in which McBrien made use of dissenting theologians, and they noted sections of the book where the presentation is not supportive of the Church's authoritative teaching. They warned that "for some readers it will give encouragement to dissent."
"The bishops cautioned that McBrien reduced the teaching of the pope and bishops to "just another voice alongside those of private theologians." In so doing, he created the impression that the official teachings of the Church have validity only when they are approved by a "consensus" of theologians, including Protestant ones. In short, McBrien elevated the theological arguments of dissenting theologians to (or above) the level of the magisterium. The bishops concluded that Catholicism should not be used in theological instruction. But given its title, McBrien's position of authority at Notre Dame, and his high profile as a Catholic commentator, readers of Catholicism are likely to believe they are reading authentic Catholic teaching. That is not the case. As one reviewer said of the third edition, "Whatever else it may do, it is likely to leave Catholic students doctrinally illiterate.""
I strongly recommend that you read this article in its entirety if you have any intention of reading anything that Fr. McBrien writes:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005...
August 3, 2009
I thought this would be a little more historical and devote less pages to a religious vocabulary than I am not used to absorbing (liturgy, ecclesiology, monastic, eucharine, etc etc). Also, apparently Marionology (Mary) and Christology (Jesus) are words. And disciplines. Yes, religious scholars have taken scientific terminology and used it on characters in the bible, and have devoted whole areas of study to them. I just don't get it.
I skimmed through pretty quickly over the parts that had constant biblical citations or paragraph after paragraph of the aforementioned language. But the parts I did read were a slightly interesting summation of the history of the church, albeit one-sided. I will give McBrien credit for acknowledging some of the seedier sides and epochs of the Catholic church, and celebrating the small steps forward (he particularly loves Vactican II, and he wrote warmly about Pope John Paul II genuflecting at the Wailing Wall and writing some apologetic things about the Holocaust. So that's nice. Bu the rest of the book either bored me to death, or insulted my intelligence. I just don't understand a life, be it layman or scholarly, devoted to these amorphous formulations, theories, terminologies, and artifices of faith. I'd understand if it was historical (in fact, that's exactly what I was hoping this book would be), but it's pseudohistory. It's scattered too-brief sketches of what the people behind the bible might have done, plus the bible itself, and then an examination of church behavior since its founding colored through esoteric and artificial terms like eucharist, body of Christ, Holy Ghost, and Church (evidently I still don't understand what they mean that word to mean).
So I gave it a shot! Now when I read my Dawkins, I have something to compare it to.
I skimmed through pretty quickly over the parts that had constant biblical citations or paragraph after paragraph of the aforementioned language. But the parts I did read were a slightly interesting summation of the history of the church, albeit one-sided. I will give McBrien credit for acknowledging some of the seedier sides and epochs of the Catholic church, and celebrating the small steps forward (he particularly loves Vactican II, and he wrote warmly about Pope John Paul II genuflecting at the Wailing Wall and writing some apologetic things about the Holocaust. So that's nice. Bu the rest of the book either bored me to death, or insulted my intelligence. I just don't understand a life, be it layman or scholarly, devoted to these amorphous formulations, theories, terminologies, and artifices of faith. I'd understand if it was historical (in fact, that's exactly what I was hoping this book would be), but it's pseudohistory. It's scattered too-brief sketches of what the people behind the bible might have done, plus the bible itself, and then an examination of church behavior since its founding colored through esoteric and artificial terms like eucharist, body of Christ, Holy Ghost, and Church (evidently I still don't understand what they mean that word to mean).
So I gave it a shot! Now when I read my Dawkins, I have something to compare it to.
May 25, 2014
An ecumenically aware Roman Catholic interpretation of the ecclesiology of Vatican II, including a more "open" interpretation of Trent and Vatican I than usual.
For the lay reader, the book helps explain some of the biblical and theological interpretations as well as historical and pastoral situations in the past that have contributed to Catholic self-understanding and views of other Christian denominations today. Is the Roman Catholic Church the one and only true Church? Can people be saved outside the Church? What does it mean to be part of the People of God, the Body of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit?
Unfortunately, what the book could have and should have helped the reader understand are the ecclesiological and sacramental deficiencies behind corruption in finance, and sexual abuse. The author had a real opportunity there, and missed it. Instead, he saved his prophetic critique for conservatives like Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI for their restrictive and centralizing tendencies.
For the lay reader, the book helps explain some of the biblical and theological interpretations as well as historical and pastoral situations in the past that have contributed to Catholic self-understanding and views of other Christian denominations today. Is the Roman Catholic Church the one and only true Church? Can people be saved outside the Church? What does it mean to be part of the People of God, the Body of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit?
Unfortunately, what the book could have and should have helped the reader understand are the ecclesiological and sacramental deficiencies behind corruption in finance, and sexual abuse. The author had a real opportunity there, and missed it. Instead, he saved his prophetic critique for conservatives like Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI for their restrictive and centralizing tendencies.
Currently reading
July 6, 2009One of the best books on contemporary Roman Catholic eclesiology.
October 31, 2018
I can at least commend McBrien for sincerity. The book is useful as an introductory overview to ecclesiology, and touches on many points, especially surrounding and following Vatican II. Yet in many little ways McBren falls short of truth, and while his opinions might just scrape the edge of what is permissible from a Catholic stance, it is only because some of his views make subtle jabs without elaboration and without pervading the whole text. I am not referring to the obvious influence of liberal/modernist theological scholarship which can include ideas that sort of remain within the land of orthodoxy (i.e. certain ecclesiological emphasis', and certain biblical stances), but positions which are outright false. Positions which are not uncommon among many sincere but misled, liberal (not a fan of such political terms) Catholics.
One of these being that Eucharistic Adoration is archaic and takes away from the Liturgy, and undermines Sacrosanctum Concilium's call for 'active participation' in the Liturgy. As Benedict XVI says in Sacrametum Caritatis: "The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself." (66). Thus McBrien does falls prey to that stance which misunderstands 'active participation' to mean literally doing stuff other than being a devout member of the congregation (I mean how many roles even allow for such 'literal participation'), for whom in reality, adoration even during Mass, is the climax of a truly active participation in the liturgy - an engagement of the mind and heart.
Another error pertains to suggesting the Catholic Church is not synonymous with the Body of Christ. McBrien misreads LG 8: "The Church... subsists in the Catholic Church," as though the Body of Christ resides therein but is not limited to the Catholic Church. Setting up a false-dichotomy. Instead he should speak of the distinction between the explicit and visible structure of the Catholic Church and the implicit and invisible dimension by which those outside the visible Church can still be said to be in varying degrees of communion with the Church, and receptive to the grace of salvation attained only through Her. McBrien undermines the mediatory necessity of the Church, and vaguely intimates the possibility of salvation aside from Christ, although I wouldn't rest on this charge since I do not cite specifically, nor would it be fair to forgo the fact he may have simply expressed himself ambiguously on this matter.
McBrien's sentiments regarding Mariology are also clear. He falls into a typical liberal devotional reductionism of Mary. Granted his articulations on Mary as Mother of the Church contain some value, his ecclesiology lacks Marian depth, and pits true Mariology against a distortion of a sound post-conciliar ecclesiology.
Many more things could be said, but I'll just add that McBrien is of the school that argues for the hermenutical discontinuity and continuity of Vatican II.
The book is by no means valuable in terms of a work of truth; but as a general introduction to ecclesiology, and a work that touches upon various key figures and areas of importance, the book is a valuable read. Especially since it contains those subtle false views which are so important to tackle today for the academic Catholic and theologian - not in an aggressive way, but in a way that is respectful of the sincerity of those who often hold such erroneous views.
One of these being that Eucharistic Adoration is archaic and takes away from the Liturgy, and undermines Sacrosanctum Concilium's call for 'active participation' in the Liturgy. As Benedict XVI says in Sacrametum Caritatis: "The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself." (66). Thus McBrien does falls prey to that stance which misunderstands 'active participation' to mean literally doing stuff other than being a devout member of the congregation (I mean how many roles even allow for such 'literal participation'), for whom in reality, adoration even during Mass, is the climax of a truly active participation in the liturgy - an engagement of the mind and heart.
Another error pertains to suggesting the Catholic Church is not synonymous with the Body of Christ. McBrien misreads LG 8: "The Church... subsists in the Catholic Church," as though the Body of Christ resides therein but is not limited to the Catholic Church. Setting up a false-dichotomy. Instead he should speak of the distinction between the explicit and visible structure of the Catholic Church and the implicit and invisible dimension by which those outside the visible Church can still be said to be in varying degrees of communion with the Church, and receptive to the grace of salvation attained only through Her. McBrien undermines the mediatory necessity of the Church, and vaguely intimates the possibility of salvation aside from Christ, although I wouldn't rest on this charge since I do not cite specifically, nor would it be fair to forgo the fact he may have simply expressed himself ambiguously on this matter.
McBrien's sentiments regarding Mariology are also clear. He falls into a typical liberal devotional reductionism of Mary. Granted his articulations on Mary as Mother of the Church contain some value, his ecclesiology lacks Marian depth, and pits true Mariology against a distortion of a sound post-conciliar ecclesiology.
Many more things could be said, but I'll just add that McBrien is of the school that argues for the hermenutical discontinuity and continuity of Vatican II.
The book is by no means valuable in terms of a work of truth; but as a general introduction to ecclesiology, and a work that touches upon various key figures and areas of importance, the book is a valuable read. Especially since it contains those subtle false views which are so important to tackle today for the academic Catholic and theologian - not in an aggressive way, but in a way that is respectful of the sincerity of those who often hold such erroneous views.
June 21, 2018
Every now and then it is good to read a book like The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism. Richard McBrien is a reliable source for a comprehensive overview of catholic (with both a big C and little c) perspective. Even though published in 2008 it is a timely resource. In times of turmoil and rapid changes in so many areas of life the world over, I needed to reground myself in the big picture so as to see the ongoing process of growth that is being made in the hope of bringing into being the kingdom of God Jesus came to reveal. If you need to refresh your hope in the future this book might be for you.
October 11, 2024
It's a reference book for better and worse. I definitely felt like I was reading a legal document at times, but it'll make a good addition to my personal library. I appreciate McBrien doing his best to offer historically contextual summaries of major decisions without getting too bogged down in the details.
January 21, 2017
Valuable book, but only if you know what you're getting. The presentation is not particularly exciting, but the text is readable and accessible. It provides a very good summary of the history of Catholic approaches to ecclesiology. It is especially valuable for those that want a good picture of what "Church" meant to the theologians at Vatican II, and what it means for liberationist and feminist theologians today.
October 23, 2009
Not really a book for fun reading, and so not really easy to rate or review. Well written and very interesting, and most of it well above my head. For anyone curious about how the Church developed the structure and canon of today, an interesting read.
May 2, 2009
Probably a good book for researchers and other specialists, not terribly accessible or relevant to the layman.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews