“Concerning the second question (Is membership in the Catholic Church contingent upon acceptance of these [Marian] dogmas?), the problem arises because each of these two dogmatic definitions is accompanied by an anathema or its equivalent. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an anathema involves an excommunication (canon 2257, 2), but that consequence follows only when the rejection of the dogma is culpable, obstinate, and externally manifested. (The canon is not part of the revised 1983 Code.) “What of those Catholics who wish to belong to the Catholic Church, who confess the Lordship of Jesus, who assemble for the Eucharist in faith, who take the Word of God to heart, and who bear witness to the Gospel in their love of and service to their neighbor? Should the questioning or even denial of these dogmas be regarded today as presumptive evidence of a lapse from Catholic faith? It could be that in their questioning or denial of these dogmas, some Catholics are reacting not against the Word of God to which these dogmas propose to bear witness, but against the inadequacy, incompleteness, limited expressive power, and historically conditioned character of these definitions. If such Catholics are otherwise faithful to their Catholic heritage and to the practice of their Catholic faith, would it not be possible to presume the opposite—namely, that they are sincere in their questioning and even denial of these dogmas (i.e., not culpable or obstinate) and that their rejection implies no correlative rejection of the major truths of faith with which these dogmas are related, e.g., the redemptive significance of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection; our hope in the resurrection of the body; the power of God’s grace to overcome completely the impact of sin? “It is possible, of course, that a Catholic’s rejection of either or both of these Marian dogmas would be a sign that one has separated himself or herself from the Catholic tradition and faith, and therefore from communion with the Catholic Church, just as Popes Pius IX and Pius XII warned. A person might, for example, reject these definitions precisely because they are papal actions. That person might believe that the Petrine office has no necessary place in the life and mission of the Church for the benefit of the Church universal. A person might also reject any place for Mary in the Christian dispensation and the Catholic tradition. Such views would effectively disengage one from the Catholic tradition and the community which embodies it. This is not to say, on the other hand, that a faithful and committed Catholic could not question the process by which these dogmas were formulated.”

One of my favourite quotations from Cardinal Newman is in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Chapter 5), when he stated that 'ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.'

NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Michael,

More likely than not, his position as a priest of God, has you questioning his "questioning". He is in a position of authority himself. If not as a future bishop, definitely as one who is perceived to have knowledge concerning the Church. Too many of us are ignorant of Church teaching and heirarchy and rely too heavily on our parish priest or someone who decides he wants to write a book to explain what has already been defined. One only need know where to look. 

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Michael,

Being of sound mind and body, I do hereby execute following: I bequeath to my children my unending love for them and my fidelity in Christ Jesus. These words that may precede a last will and testament could also be attributed to Peter, Paul and the martyrs whose blood poured out sustained the belief in Christ we have to this day.

The great treasure of the Church is this "deposit of faith"; the teachings of the apostles and the breaking of the Bread. For who were these men and women, the Church Fathers and Doctors of the faith? Were they of great intellect and stature? Some were, but the majority had the gift of faith and expounded this faith into word and deed unseen or unknown prior to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Today, I put great trust in these men and women to have discerned all there is to know about the Truth. There is nothing new under the Son. Because you have trained your mind and soul to recognize the Truth you correctly dispute inaccuracies using your mind and the authority of the Church. I stand with you, brother, in your belief and pray that God may continue to enlighten us and feed us in our faith.

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Questioning of dogma itself is not a bad thing as one need only to look at Thomas for support for that approach.  In fact, a good questioning may do one's faith immense good.

I have not read the book in question but would like to point out that whatever Protestant churches think of the Lord's Supper, it is not what a Catholic would think of when asked about the Eucharist. 

Joseph Bailey

Wow Michealme, I thought I was the only addicted-to-God human who has read this ridiculously lengthy book from cover to cover! I have the “Study Edition” and actually enjoyed the reading. One of the first things that caught my attention is that the book does not carry an "Imprimatur" or the "Nihil Obstat". I understand this to mean that Fr. Richard P. McBrien is a “professional” theologian and as a result has the freedom to express his thoughts and suggestions rather freely and loosed from the chains (so to speak) of common catholic thought.

In my opinion everything is open to question including and especially dogmas of the Church. The truth must stand against the assault of sincere questioning. For example: take the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception", it just might turn out that we were all immaculately conceived. That wouldn't make the Church dogma wrong just viewed through a clearer lens. It is true to say that when this dogma was first inspired it was at a time well before we came to a better understanding of human reproduction. It has always been my personal conclusion that the early Church Doctors would not have reached some of the conclusions they did had they known that Mary would later be considered the "biological" Mother of God—meaning that Jesus carried the DNA of Mary. Refer to CCC #496 for more clearer confusion on this matter. Yikes!

God Bless you Michaelme!

...through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit!

Remember, the Sun is always shining!