There is an oft-cited quote — attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt — which asserts the following maxim:
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
I suppose the quote is popular because it gives off a certain aura of common sense. After all, one can see some truth reflected in the hierarchy of minds as laid out by Mrs. Roosevelt. There’s a big difference between theoretical physicists, philosophers, theologians, and the like, and the salacious rumor-mongers at the tabloids. As for the rest of us, we tend to aspire to the lofty goal of being idea-makers, trip and fall more often than we’d like into gossip, and spend most of our time existing somewhere in between.
A deeper look, however, reveals the superficiality of the observation.
Ideas exist as a product of human thought and endeavor. Events come about because of the application of ideas in the world. People produce ideas, and applied ideas give rise to events. Whether given ideas or events are good, bad, or evil, it behooves us to understand what we can about the thinkers who are behind them. We want to know whose ideas we should support and promote, and whose ideas should be condemned. Mein Kampf, for example, didn’t write itself, and neither did the Summa Theologica. We associate the ideas these texts contain — and the events that have been shaped by them — with those who created them. And because of this, we have no problem speaking disparagingly (and almost interchangeably) of Hitler and Nazism, or with admiration and praise for Aquinas and Thomism.
It is easy to apply value judgments of this kind to those who have lived in the past and have already made a clear mark on history. More difficult is the application of critical analysis to our contemporaries, inasmuch as we lack the certitude of hindsight. This is a particular challenge when it comes to those who have attained a certain level of celebrity. Cults of personality have always existed, but the rise of big media (and now social media alongside it) have made it easier than ever for a person to become larger than life, and loved (and thus defended) beyond reasonable measure. Often enough, those individuals who rise quickly to prominence do so primarily on the strength of their charisma. They are likeable, camera friendly, and seem “down to earth.” The kind of guy (or gal) you’d “like to get a beer with.”
When it comes to such figures in the Catholic world, few are more noteworthy than Bishop Robert Barron. His apostolate — Word on Fire Ministries — reaches millions through the artful use of multimedia and a state-of-the-art website that follows the latest trends in design, typography, and mobile responsiveness. Everything about Bishop Barron from his downloadable biography and neatly-packaged press kit to pages of products and easily-embedded videos is parceled into conveniently-sized portions and ready to be re-used by providers who seek to feed a content-hungry online audience.
Of course, the best marketing and communications plan in the world won’t do anything for an off-putting persona. Barron is affable and easy going, his congeniality so effortless that it’s almost completely disarming. He riffs on everything from theological topics to current events to movie reviews in his prolific series of YouTube videos. And his numbers are telling: Word on Fire has nearly 200,000 Facebook fans and 30,000 Twitter followers; Bishop Barron’s own Facebook page has another 600,000 fans, his Twitter account has 80,000 followers, and his YouTube channel has 74,000 subscribers. These are numbers that would make many of the best online content producers green with envy. Much of the credit no doubt goes to the clearly talented Brandon Vogt, who acts as the Content Director for Word on Fire when he’s not busy producing and promoting his own series of Catholic books, videos, and educational courses.
As an example of the kind of professional mastery an effective Catholic apostolate should strive for in the 21st century, Word on Fire — along with those responsible for its high production values — are deserving of admiration and respect. In that regard, Bishop Barron is doing exactly what he should be to build a successful online media business and an army of fans and advocates.
Which is why it’s so incredibly important that the content be as good as the packaging. For obvious reasons, the absence of legitimate, corrective criticism can be a very dangerous thing indeed to anyone in Bishop Barron’s position, as well as to the souls they serve. But with so many adoring fans, critiquing anything Barron says invites trouble.
And this is truly a pity. Because Barron, while hitting many of the right notes and no doubt doing the best he knows how to inform people about Catholicism, nevertheless embraces some very bad ideas. When the incisive Maureen Mullarkey sharply identified the fatal flaws in his response to the ISIS attacks in Paris, her larger thesis was quickly lost in the defensive ring that spontaneously formed around the bishop. What was never substantively addressed in all the clucking was the thrust of her piece – that nonviolence is an untenable response to radical, genocide-seeking Islam – unless the goal is to be submitted to dhimmitude.
She made her case adroitly, but few listened. (She added more on her own website a few days later, though I doubt it was better received.) Meanwhile, Vogt — who stopped into our comment boxes to protest the original article without mentioning his role as the media point-man for Barron — took to his 10,000-fan Facebook page to lambast my editorial decision to keep the piece unaltered despite his objections. There, the number of ad hominem attacks on Mullarkey — the majority of which were predictably attempted puns on her surname — piled up high and deep, while some comments critical of Vogt’s handling of the issue went missing.
Through it all, the impression one was left with was that those who objected to the article think that Mullarkey’s ideas are bad because she is mean, and Barron’s ideas are good because he is nice and we like him.
It shouldn’t need to be said, but this is a terrible mechanism for discernment.
At the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam, another analysis of Barron was mounted in the wake of the dust-up, this one moving beyond the question of the proper Christian response to Islam and into Barron’s Christology itself – with particular focus on the influence of the writings and theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar on his thinking. An excerpt:
For years we have attempted to demonstrate that Hans Urs Von Balthasar is not an orthodox theologian, not only due to his controversial theory of a potentially empty hell, but just in terms of his basic Christology. Catholics need to understand that it is not just one theory that makes Balthasar questionable, but a whole slew of bizarre novelties. We recommend reviewing our previous articles “Balthasar’s Denial of the Beatific Vision in Christ” and “Balthasar and the ‘Faith’ of Christ” on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website, which both deal with Balthsar’s unorthodox Christology, as well as “The Heresies of Balthasar” on this blog, which reveals Balthasar’s absurd position that sin has its own ontological reality.
One staple of Balthasarian Christology is his teaching that Christ only gradually came to understand His messianic identity, and that this did not happen by any infused knowledge by virtue of the Incarnation (Balthasar strongly rejected the idea that Christ had any knowledge given directly from God about His mission). Instead, Christ had to “learn” that He was the Messiah, basically through regular human intuition. It kind of slowly dawned on his consciousness as He grew.
The Catholic Tradition is that Christ had infused knowledge of His own identity and mission.
[…]
But Bishop Barron chooses instead to promote the heretical novelty of Balthasar that Christ had to learn about His identity through a gradual enlightening of His consciousness. For example, in his Lenten Meditations, then-Father Barron offers this commentary on the Baptism of the Lord:
“Jesus has just been baptized. He has just learned his deepest identity and mission and now he confronts—as we all must—the great temptations. What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?”
Jesus has “just learned his deepest identity and mission” at His baptism, implying that He was in positive ignorance of his identity and mission before this moment?
The full essay tackles these issues in greater depth, and deserves to be read. These are substantive theological criticisms, and should thus be addressed substantively. The ideas under review from Von Balthasar are the same that infuse Bishop Barron’s work. Mentioned only in passing in the longer version of the above-cited post is an issue that gives me equal — if not greater — cause for concern. Namely, Barron’s all-but-full-throated embrace of universalism – the idea that hell is empty and that we may hope that all men are saved. This is of no small importance in evaluating his larger body of work. It undoubtedly has an impact on the urgency with which he understands our evangelical mission. In point of fact, such a belief cannot help but undermine any desire to convert those of other faiths to Catholicism at all, since in the end, it doesn’t really matter, because everyone is saved. Here is Barron on this topic in his own words:
In this video, which has nearly 160,000 views, you’ll note, among other troubling comments, that Barron insists that
…hell is not so much a place — we use spacial metaphors for it — it’s a condition, a state of being. It’s having refused in freedom the divine love. And it results in this terrible loneliness. We have to accept the possibility of hell, we have to accept the existence of it as a possibility because of human freedom — BUT — are any human beings in hell? We don’t know. We don’t know. The Church has never declared on that subject. And — and — we may pray that all be saved, and may even reasonably hope that all be saved. So, it’s a kind of universalism if you want…
This is simply not the Catholic view. The Council of Florence taught that “the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell…”, which indicates a belief that hell is indeed a place, as do the many Gospel passages cited in this article on hell in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hell is a place, in fact, which any reasonable interpretation of the fallen nature of mankind would make us hard-pressed to believe could be empty. As St. Anthony Mary Claret observed:
A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell, and it is of the faith that all who die in mortal sin are condemned for ever and ever. According to statistics, approximately 80,000 persons die every day. How many of these will die in mortal sin, and how many will be condemned! For, as their lives have been, so also will be their end.
The vision of hell given to the children at Fatima gives further witness to this:
She [Our Lady of Fatima] opened Her hands once more, as She had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls [of the damned] in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals.1 This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, Who had already prepared us by promising, in the first apparition, to take us to Heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.2
Our Lady then explained to the children, “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go.”
The above examples notwithstanding, my point here is not to launch an exhaustive critique of Bishop Barron’s work and thinking. It is instead to point out that there are things in his work and thinking (just as there are in mine) that are deserving of critique. He has a far larger platform and a much louder microphone than most. His influence invokes a higher standard of scrutiny. We should not be afraid to examine these things carefully simply because he is a popular and congenial figure.
For those who have benefited from work of Catholic media personalities like Barron and thus feel compelled to rise instantly to their defense at any perceived slight, I would urge you to consider carefully whether your response is rooted in truth and justice, or in simple affinity. Do the critiques have merit? Do you know your faith well enough to recognize a subtle but important deviation?
I have no doubt that Bishop Barron, Vogt, and others who have demonstrated great alacrity with contemporary communications paradigms could do great and lasting work for the good of the Church if they adhere to the central points of her doctrines. This is why it is so critical that they apply as much diligence to the message as they do the medium.
Reasonable and charitable–and cautionary for all of us. Everyone benefits from corrective criticism, which is why it’s one of the works of mercy.
Yes, this is hardly exhaustive. I have no intent here other to point out that with this essay and another preceding it, it seems that your concentration is quite myopic, thus hardly fair in toto, because you’ve seen fit to hang your hat twice on Balthaser/Barron/universalism as a lynchpin of a bizzaro deus ex machina designed to take the Barron industry down. Is the internet too small for the both of you? Do you think that mainstream Catholics are being led down the primrose, bishop-skulled paths to perdition by this one priest/prelate? More to the point, do you believe that by your one-trick pony expose here that you are saving souls from the affable heretic? I also wonder by your citation of media-savvy priests that you’ve deduced Barron’s success as kin to others such as Corapi or Phleger? Please consider focusing your critical eye upon more enticing subjects, perhaps the Bishop of Rome? And consider as well asking current and former seminarians about the bishop from their time together at Mundelein.
So I take it you’re a fan? Thanks for illustrating my point.
Ah, the tactic of diminution. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Your bill of indictment consists of particulars which Steve has not committed; at least, you fail miserably to demonstrate any evidence.
It seems you are precisely guilty of what you accuse Steve in your second, heavily-larded paragraph. Your credentials would be impressive, except that anyone with such a traditionalist pedigree as you cite would not falsely claim Steve disagreed with him “on points other than the focus of this article.”
Frankly, I don’t buy your attempt at building cred to cover your foolishness.
You have failed to engage anything Steve addressed in substance, and missed entirely the issue of Bishop Barron’s construction of insularity from criticism.
ABS is free from any formal theological training and the has no credentials to boast about, but, he can read orthodox sources and he knows that Bishop Barron’s assertion about Jesus coming to know who He is and His Mission post-Baptism is an ancient part of Nestorianism revived during our captious and confusing times.
Yes, Virginia, most new heresies are popular media revivals of old heresies.
http://tinyurl.com/q9kfpsa
Those who ask their own selves what is wrong with their own speculations abut Jesus’ putative ignorance could read Saint Thomas Aquinas but that is a decidedly unpopular practice, isn’t it?
If you don’t want to be termed a fan, then perhaps offering some disambiguation would be helpful. Clarify where you stand vis-a-vis the bishop’s embrace of theology that destroys any evangelical impetus and flies in the face of two millenia of eschatological teaching.
I’m not attempting here to sink his battleship; I’m chipping away at an iceberg. I’ll let you in on a secret: unlike most other Catholic writers and editors at various publications, I can’t be fired. What I’ve built here is by design – a publication with influence, but with distributed funding, and no strings. The unique position we are in here at 1P5 is that we can touch the third rails of Church politics without losing mega-benefactors (we don’t have any) or upsetting our relationships with the episcopacy (we don’t need that) while still getting a lot of eyeballs on important discussion topics.
And as we establish a beachhead, we get people talking. We provide cover for others to do more work on previously untouchable topics. Along with a select few others, I’ve lead the way on open criticism of Pope Francis, for example, since 2013. It’s now become a cottage industry. But at the time, while I was taking a hammering from the Catholic MSM, I was getting emails and phone calls from Catholics in academia, in chancery offices, and at various publications, all saying, “Keep doing what you’re doing! We can’t say these things or we’ll lose our jobs/donors/access to bishops/etc., but it needs to get out there!”
So it is with Bishop Barron. I don’t question the man’s basic decency, or his love for his own understanding of what the Catholic faith is. I question whether his understanding of the Catholic faith is authentic, and whether the flaws in that understanding are the proverbial “drop of poison” that Pope Leo XIII warns about in Satis Cognitum:
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”
Bishop Barron’s power and influence are growing. He is now close to Hollywood, where his fledgling media empire can tap into even more talent than he has at his disposal now. Should we let that trend continue, unchecked, while such serious questions remain?
We’ve both agreed that what I’ve attempted here is not exhaustive, so what, exactly, is your problem with breaking the ice?
I suppose “lard” obscured the very clearly stated fact I do not believe in universalism, and the proof pudding that my sole concern is with sanctification and salvation of my soul. I assume and presume nothing. Where I have difficulty: you have advanced a sound criticism that I don’t dispute. However you go one step beyond (for me) by claiming unequivocally that Barron’s error “destroys evangelical impetus” for his part. The proof text quote you cite is strong, but I don’t see it as giving anyone license to make such a broad conclusion. Now, because I’m not as theologically astute as most of your commentators, and I yet and still can’t see what the endgame of your criticism might be, I lament that while your article deserves recognition in RC dialogues, the climate of this exchange didn’t break the ice for me, rather it seems like it’s easier to freeze certain folks out by the cliché caricatures of “troll…cafeteria catholic…heretic” and such. I admit that my discomfort is primarily about tone and tenor. That is certainly insufficient for you and your readership. Consider this as acceptance of charitable, fraternal correction. Your people are right, nothing to see here.
Why are you side stepping Barrons error regarding Christ not knowing who he was until he was baptized? That’s even more demonstrably an error than his empty hell statements.
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
Excellent. The real question is not truth but popularity and any man who criticises the errors of a popular prelate must be intent on destroying that prelate rather than intent on defending the truth and so what if Mr. Skjojec’s penultimate paragraph anticipates,and answers, the objections you later follow with?
The Popularity of a Prelate is more important to you than is Catholic Truth.
O, and asking modern seminarians about such matters is not the way to truth but a way to court despair.
Just one quibble:
O, and asking modern seminarians about such matters is not the way to truth but a way to court despair.
Well, by all reliable accounts, Fr. Barron reshaped Mundelein into a seminary which at least allowed room for orthodox theological instruction and visible expression of same by seminarians, which represents a real improvement over what he inherited. He deserves some thanks for that. (Alas that the early signs are that this may not last under the new leadership put in place by the new ordinary of Chicago.)
But that can’t allow us to overlook his problematic adoption of some of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s most problematic theology.
A visible expression of orthodoxy that surrounds that which is guess work and/or unorthodox – bordering on the heretical – is dangerous, Athelstane. Because it ‘looks’ orthodox, but is anything but.
The essay was gentle. I am sure he could have hit harder but the author is a kind man.
Is the internet too small for the both of you?
No, it’s not. But Catholic doctrine is too well defined to allow room for the soteriology and Christology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Robert Barron, I’m afraid.
It is a great shame that such gifts are put in the service of such a damaged theology.
That remark, in particular, reduced any respect I had for its author’s argument, which was pretty thin from the outset.
Both of his comments smell of “troll” from front to back.
Do you seriously intend to sidestep the above examples of the damage done by arguably the most well-known bishop in the U.S. through peddling heretical statements by arguing that Steve hasn’t offered a much longer bill of indictment?
You seek to ameliorate the bishop’s dangerously heterodox views by offering a list of particulars you demand Steve should fulfill to avoid your condemnation. I find your methods deceitful.
The Saints, who spoke with supernatural wisdom, had great zeal for the salvation of souls. Indeed, by way of the Gift of Knowledge they fully understood the gravity and magnitude of sin. By mortal sin we choose to reject God’s invitation to eternal life.
Thank you for writing about Catholic ideas, events and people… like a Catholic.
Truth be told, my personal view is that the new “communication paradigm” is not very successful at evangelizing. The new paradigm tends to be good at providing information rather than making people think on that information. It tends to also be a popularity contest. So it generally tends to fall short when it comes to getting people to contemplate and think about issues (unless they are already doing that).
I think you are correct. Your point applies greatly to the New Evangelization, which so far has yielded zero effective results measurable on the national or regional scene.
I have an instinctive suspicion of media-mogul celebrity prelates.
Much too worldly, even in his style and presentation. It appears immodest and not proper to a Catholic, let alone a priest, to whom we ought to be able to look for spiritual and moral instruction and example.
I keep thinking of Fr. Corapi, myself, and how upset his biggest fans were when they learned what else he’d been up to. *I do not mean to imply that I think +Barron is engaged in immoral practices,* BUT he’s on that same sort of pedestal and ANY perceived falling from said height has potential to do massive damage to those who put too much faith in him…
Very well said, Mr Skojec. It is virtually impossible to overstate the case about the damage which universalism is doing to the mission of the Church, not to mention the pastoral problems it creates at parish level. Only today I have been engaged with some confused parishioners who have been told by a “helpful” Sister that we can have good hope that nobody will ever be damned. When parishioners have a healthy devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, it tends to disturb their sensibilities if one tells them that Our Lady may have been wrong about hell!
Despite the fact that Jude 1,7 states that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah are undergoing a punishment of eternal fire, and that Our Lord in John 17,12 tells His Father that He has lost none of the apostles except for the SON OF PERDITION, apparently the words of Scripture count for nothing when faced with a disciple of von Balthazar. All of a sudden the teachings of Scripture, the Fathers, the Saints and the great theologians of the Church can now be dismissed with a cheery “ta ta” because an ex-Jesuit with an unusual relationship with an unapproved “mystic” said “The Church has never taught that there was anybody in hell.”
If we can reasonably hope that there is nobody in hell, then why bother with all this “New Evangelization” stuff? What is the point of Barron trying to attract people to the Church if they don’t need it in the first place? Surely, its all just “solemn nonsense”, to quote an old commie – there is no point to any of it. We should all just eat, drink and make merry, for tomorrow we die. Its as immoral as selling somebody a ponzi scheme. On reflection, perhaps “ponzi scheme” should be the new nickname for nu-Church, and the Pope can be entitled the “Supreme Ponzi.”
…this is why Our Lady is the one tasked with and given the honor of crushing the head of Satan and dispelling all heresies. A good and dutiful mother, unlike those who attempt to be their children’s friend, tells Her children of the world and the dangers therein.
Unfortunately, the notion of tough and true love has been replaced by that of facilitating error and/or promoting sentiment so as not to upset people. That is the gutting of true motherhood. But folks do not want truth, they want easy and feeling good about themselves.
You have not a clue about what Bishop Barron is talking about.
Neither does Bishop Barron: May I suggest reading the attached sermon by St Leonard of Port Maurice on the subject. It’s called “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved”. It should clear the fog of Bishop Barron’s “Universalism” heterodoxy.
https://olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
I have read it. The problem is that you are attributing a teaching to Bishop Barron that he never makes. He has never clamed that all will be saved as a matter of theological faith, which is what universalism implies. He claims that we may exercise the theological virtue of hope that each individual who has lived, lives now, or will live in the future finds salvation.
With respect, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s a duck no matter what you call it. B Barron uses modernism 101 on a consistent basis. Hint? Ambiguity is a chief characteristic. Is it remotely possible that he was promoted for his orthodoxy?
Since B Barron hails from the Chicago area as well, do you think B Cupich was ever accused of, let alone convicted of, orthodoxy before being promoted to Abshp of Chicago? His selection and performance at the Synod speaks for itself.
Both B Barron and Abshp Cupich are liberal progressives aka modernist. The difference is B Barron is a better speaker and able to mask it.
With equal respect, having viewed the video in question quite a while ago, and then again recently, my own understanding of his discussion was to explain an idea, to,offer an explanation of Von Balthasar’s ideas I. An intellectual exercise and in fact, to present these as an example of hope.
There is a difference between a robust intellectual debate, considering many ideas and being purposefully ambiguous in order to deceive.
Bishop Barron’s reasonable hope that all may be saved has been criticized by Church Militant time and again.
Well, it’s been criticized by many observers – a number which greatly increases when the original Balthasarian articulation is factored in.
One such criticism by Dr. Ralph Martin (Professor of theolog at Sacred Haert Major Seminary in Detroit) in his recent book Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization was actually the occasion of some surprisingly harsh attack by Fr. Barron, who actually went so far as to accuse Dr. Martin of theological dissent – which is an astounding thing to think, when you’re speaking of Ralph Martin.
Here is Barron’s response to Martin.
I read it at the time and was staggered at the weakness of Barron’s argumentation. He spends four-fifths of the article accurately sketching out Martin’s argument, and all but openly acknowledges that the weight of Scripture and Tradition is against universalism.
So faced with this mountain of evidence, how does Barron refute Martin? Thus:
So a single recent pope is, through some unexplained sleight of hand, made to outweigh all his predecessors, along with Scripture and Tradition, and Martin is labelled a dissenter for pointing out the tension between the former and latter positions. I had grown fond of Barron during my journey into the Church, but something broke when I read that article, and I was never again able really to trust him. He does some good work, but that was a real dealbreaker for me.
…one of the most theologically accomplished popes in history, writing at a very high level of authority, has declared that we oughtn’t to hold that Hell is densely populated….
The first clause is a pure appeal to authority, and not the magisterial kind; the second clause is actually the question being begged, as is the central part of the sentence itself. A theological aside (which is really all this passage in Spe Salvi is) in an encyclical, connected in no way with the any of the usual language used to indicate that a formal dogmatic pronouncement is being promulgated, is latched onto by Fr. Barron as an argument ender simply because it seems to lend some (limited) weight to a Balthasarian soteriology.
This highlights the problem we face in the degeneration over the last century of encyclicals into extended papal theological musings increasingly bereft of any doctrinal clarifications. When combined with the kind of papalotry now rampant in the Church, it makes for a dangerous state of affairs, and not just for high profile Balthasarian-flavored apologists.
Also: Barron’s attack on Martin occasioned a lengthy blog post by priest-blogger Msgr. Charles Pope of Washington DC., wherein a clearly very reluctant Msgr. Pope (who is long on the record in admiring Fr Barron) felt compelled to characterize Barron’s attack on Martin as “unnecessary, excessive and hurtful. It is far from the kind of balanced and careful analysis I have come to admire about Father Barron.” See “Hurts and Hopes Regarding the Recent Debates on Hell” by Msgr. Charles Pope • December 9, 2012.
Ah yes, I forgot to mention Dr. Martin. He was interview on The World Over on EWTN regarding this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MBv59vMeJY
He was also interviewed on Forward Boldly: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/forwardboldly/2013/02/10/forward-boldly-guest-dr-ralph-martin-will-many-be-saved
Yes, they had a brilliant episode of the Vortex in which they compared Barron’s teaching to the teaching of the Saints. Unfortunately their mods banned me from their site after I suggested that some of the problems with the Synod had originated in Rome, so I can’t seem to find it now. But their critique of Barron’s theology has been excellent.
Yeah, look. I don’t really get why everyone gets so worked up about Bishop Barron’s view on Hell. It seems pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that he’s repeatedly said that one may ultimately hope Hell is empty, in contrast to declaring it to be so. How’s that a problem?
As for the idea that Jesus understands His identity at baptism: doesn’t that solve several problems? Doesn’t scripture insist that he learned from His mother and “grew” in understanding? Doesn’t John tell us how the Virgin pushed Him along at Cana? If such a viewpoint is not in complete agreement with the old Encyclopedia, what of it? The question is whether the viewpoint is at odds with clear teachings of the Church.
I think the answer has to be, “No.”
Apparently you’ve forgotten that when Jesus was thought to be lost in the temple he asked Mary and Joseph ‘didn’t you know and I would be in my fathers house?’ It would appear to anyone of sense that Jesus had a pretty good idea at very young age who He was and where he truly belonged. Jesus Himself called Hell a place ‘
while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”. Perhaps those posing as Catholics should read what Christ said rather than some pompous intellectual
It would appear I have no sense, then. Look, I’m not trying to insist that those views are correct against other views. I’m simply saying that there is a pretty good argument for both of them and that neither of them is condemned.
It is the job of theologians to theorize in a way that accounts for what the Church knows. And the idea that, for example, Christ comes to His understanding over time is perfectly reasonable (surely the infant could not have known who He really was). Since it’s logical to think that, how do we think that happens?
Perhaps my real question is why this seems like such a problem? Is there some serious error that holding to the view Jesus understood His identity only at the baptism leads us? If so, what?
Your second paragraph is neither perfectly reasonable or logical, rather, it is a heresy popular amongst liberal protestants and now increasingly popular amongst modernists.
There are links that have been provided that you could click on and read for your own self that what you think is perfectly fine as some “view” is in fact, a heresy.
Surely, the infant could not have known who He really was?
Yes He did.
see 476 here
http://tinyurl.com/onl3vm9
Well, that’s one smart infant. Are you entirely certain you aren’t heretical yourself? It seems to me you are denying the humanity of Christ by insisting He always knew everything (during His work on Earth).
Don’t we believe He was like us in all ways except sin? Learning is how we come to know. I’m beginning to think I am not in error at all.
It is a mystery, BTP, something we must accept although we, limited because we only have human understanding, cannot grasp.
I’m hip to mysteries, believe me. But I do not see where the Church has definitively taught Jesus knew His mission and identity completely from the moment of birth. That is what my complaint is.
Please just tell me where I’m wrong: from the moment of conception, He was the Christ: the Logos Incarnate. Yet at that moment, His body had no human brain with which to comprehend anything at all. At some point, then, between conception and baptism, He must have come to understand Himself and his mission. This must be the case if Christ is fully human.
Tell me where I’m wrong.
…His divinity was always present, BTP, united to that flesh. That is the mystery. But there is no doubt that Christ was in the Temple long before His baptism. He was there doing His Father’s business. (He wasn’t consulting on carpentry issues either.)
Unfortunately, it seems, in the push to explore the humanity of Christ, there are many who would dismiss His divinity and also His perfection, BTP.
That’s why I look at comments like, “We ‘can’ hope that Hell is empty,” like so much, we can all hope that Christ was just pulling our legs and trying to scare people by talking about Hell so much. He was just kidding when He said it would have been better for Judas to not have been born.
Entertaining erroneous what-ifs that, sorry, annihilate the gift of free will by way of supposing is not helpful. It’s purposefully misleading.
Unless you’re God! For goodness sake, Jesus is the Word, He’s divine and one of the three persons of the Trinity, not just an infant. Carrying God on your womb, God incarnate is not exactly being just pregnant either. Having a sense of the mystery and sanctity of God is a gift of faith..I think people who equate Hin as just human who learns He’s divine is beyond my comprehension.
Maybe we’re both stumped, then. I don’t understand people who equate Him as only divine: God pretending to be a man.
It is a much older heresy to deny the human nature of Christ than it is to deny His divine nature.
There’s no need to deny one or the other.. As to what it is possible for a real human being to know when they are completely sinless, well, maybe that would render one smart baby. We’re tainted with sin the moment we’re conceived. Could be, that sin is what blinds us from learning a great many things….. via contact with God.
Whatever…some people simply like to waste time in pointless arguments. I’m sorry I took the bait as I am not one of them. Believe what you will. I simply don’t care!
I didn’t think the argument was pointless. More like the opposite of pointless. But ok. I do think you should think through your position a little more, since you don’t seem to be able to explain it against a pretty basic objection.
Yes, well, He is God, so….
(Light goes on) O, IANS gets it. You are an autocephalic heretical troll
You are a very busy lady.
Unnecessary ad-hominem. I’ve actually read the links and they simply don’t say what you think they say. Jordan Miller has, on this discussion, makes the most sense and clearly expresses what I’ve only had an intuition about.
Oh. Since we are calling names now: you’re a heretic. A Nazi-zombie heretic. With a tail. So there.
It was a necessary ad hominem because it is you who are a heretic (try the catholic catechism to see the definition of a heretic) who repeatedly denies what the Church teaches despite your having come to knowledge of that teaching and you are one who denies that what you think possible has already been condemned – The syllabus of errors link.
Were you to try and accept the Faith as Divine Revelation first, then you might find that God would add to your Faith grace to enlighten your intellect so you could come to a fuller understanding of the Faith but you do not want to do that.
You are demonstrating free will though, so, you’ve got that going for ya…
As for the names, my skin is thicker than Hillary’s ass, but to be called names by you is does penetrate inside the skin of IANS, all the way to his funny bone.
The Church does not teach what you think it teaches on this question.
Your irony is incandescentaly obvious to others but you can not even see it yourself, can you?
That is, you feel your own self at liberty to call into question the knowledge of your Lord and Creator (how is it possible to get more ad hominem against He who is the Alpha and Omega? ) but you object to another human questioning your orthodoxy and your lack of knowledge about it.
Written otherwise, you have no problem calling Jesus (God and man) ignorant (yes, Virginia, that is what you have done with your mocking observation about what could He know as an infant?) but you are very sensitive when you are called a heretic.
Ad hominem, ad hominem…
So, one last try here, sister.
http://tinyurl.com/j9dg2qg
The section you were directed to treats of the soul of Jesus and we all know, don’t we, that our soul possesses the attributes of will, intellect and memory; thus, how dare you claim that Jesus possesses a defective soul?
Yes, Virginia, that is what you are doing when you say His soul – even as an infant – was ignorant.
Now, sister, a little more humility about your own self and an infinite more love of Jesus could help you climb out of the pit your Pride led you to stumble into.
Your choice.
I wonder what gets in to certain idiots so that they think the writing of a single theologian is the same thing as the teaching of the Church. It’s a Protestant approach, if truth be said.
To put is simply and the leave it: if we are to take the humanity of Christ seriously, we have to accept the idea that Jesus took limitations on himself at the Incarnation. He bled, he wept, we was exhausted, he was surprised (consult St. Mark’s gospel for a sequence of cases where Christ is surprised). We cannot simply read these passages out of scripture as if we were Gnostics.
So it is hardly absurd to wonder if these limitations (which are completely orthodox in pointing out) also included some limitation about His mission and identity. Does he have complete understanding as a toddler? An infant? As a fetus? I don’t think it’s crazy to say he did not, especially if we reject gnosticism and duality. Jesus really was a man, and indeed still is.
Is it really logically troublesome to suppose that the baptism, when the Spirit of the Father comes on Jesus, is the point at which he understands completely his identity and mission? That this realization is so profound that he retreats to the desert for 40 days to prepare for it?
My worry is that your view leaves us with a Gnostic Christ, who pretends to sweat blood, pretends to mess up a healing, pretends to be surprised in Nazareth. In short, a non-human Jesus; God in a meat-suit.
By all means, though, continue to pound the table.
You persist in obstinate doubt of Catholic Teaching and so that means you are a heretic and its is quite clear that you prefer your own heterodox musings over the doctrine of the Church and what IANS has been posting is not his own opinions but it is clear you are confused about that simple fact and so it is no surprise that weightier matters confuse you even more.
The old seminary text of Christology clearly teaches that which you continue to repudiate but it does not teach the gnosticism you impute to others and that is to not even mention the Syllabus and the condemned propositions therein which you support.
The New Testament does not teach that Jesus was surprised or ignorant but it does teach me to identify and then ignore heretics.
You are a heretic and I will ignore you.
IANS was initially correct in identifying you as an heretical autocephalic troll but he neglected to note you are also a hellacious hypocrite.
So, it was not at all surprising to read you avoid the matter of your sensitivity about and objection to ad hominems while your heretical ad hominems against Jesus continue.
About you, 2 Timothy 3:6 comes to mind.
Weak.
BTP,
The question concerning Christ’s self-awareness was settled long ago. It appears many people (including prelates) just can’t get their minds around the dogmatic fact that Christ was fully Human and fully Divine. Christ was always in Full Communion with God the Father. It’s a mystery. But, men much smarter than us debated this very issue over 1000 years ago. And the Holy Mother didn’t “push” Christ at Cana. As a matter of fact, it was Christ, who knew what would happen, who reminded His Mother what was at stake. Again, if you accept Christ’s full Divinity, you have to accept that he always knew that He was the Son of God.
But doesn’t that seem too simple? If Christ’s divinity means he must always have known who He is while on Earth, doesn’t Christ’s divinity also mean he couldn’t really have died? Put differently, if divine omniscience means always knowing, does divine impassibility mean never dying?
Obviously not. So I’m not sure where the error must be.
He was both Fully Human and Fully Divine. This is really a very ancient debate, that lead to the first major heresies in the Church. The questioning of both Christ’s Divinity and His Humanity are nothing new. And, to this day, it gives many people fits.
I’m aware of how old the debate was. But you aren’t explaining how it is that assenting to the belief that Jesus is fully divine necessarily implies He knew this completely from birth.
Read about the three kinds of knowledge Jesus possessed: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm
The only kind of knowledge he grew in was the purely experiential knowledge through his normal interactions with the material world.
God could die because he had human nature. He could die because he had a body and soul. When his body bled, God bled. When his body died, God died, because the soul left the body.
It is the teaching of Christ in the scriptures that Hell is certainly not empty. He was constantly warning of it in the Gospels. It has been the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries with the Popes, bishops, saints, seers and countless private revelations. It is impossible and blasphemous to hope that hell is empty. Christ and the Church have said otherwise.
Jesus was not a human person. Jesus was a divine person. His person hood was divine. Jesus is a divine person with two natures. A human nature and a divine nature. So a divine person with both human and divine nature.
Jesus had three different types of knowledge. Beatific, infused, and acquired. When the scriptures say he grew in knowledge, it is talking about the third type, acquired knowledge. This is sensory. The sensory knowledge of what it feels like to walk for the first time. What an apple tastes like. As God, he created the apple, but in his incarnation, he tasted it for the first time.
To say that the Second Person of the Trinity didn’t know he was the Messiah is blasphemous. He knew he was alwaysGod
If we are going to take the dogma that Jesus was fully human seriously, we have to ask how it could be, for example, that toddler Jesus could have known He was the Logos.
Let me put it differently: do you suppose Jesus spoke flawless Aramaic from the moment of His nativity? If not, why?
From the moment of his conception, Jesus had the beatific vision. He knew the past, present, future about everything. His infused knowledge at conception, gave his mind the knowledge about all creatures and creation. So as a toddler, not only did he know he was the Logos, he knew about everything. As a toddler, he knew about the internet. I think he could have spoken flawless Aramaic at his nativity, but he chose not too. He knew the vocabulary and grammar in the womb, but it wasn’t the right time to speak. he had to grow in acquired knowledge of the senses. He chose to learn the language with Mary and Joseph as children do with their parents. He had his first sensory experience of speaking Aramaic with his parents out loud, even though as God, he knew the language already.
I hear you. I think I tend to place more emphasis on the real humanity of Jesus — that he genuinely emptied himself and became a slave — and, to be honest, your viewpoint strikes me as too gnostic.
Not that you are a heretic — I don’t think you are and I don’t think I am, ok? I hope we can get past that stupidity of such name calling.
But, to me, you have a God who is pretending to be a human. He’s playacting, slumming it. He owns his humanity fully, not like a rich kid who spends a year living in a sketchy neighborhood.
Maybe a way out is to suppose His infused knowledge happened at baptism? His beatific vision allowed Jesus to speak as a young person with such understanding — He understood the Father — but the total knowledge of all things was partitioned from him (partitioned BY Him) from his human nature and human experience.
Speculation, I know. My main concern is to think in such a way that does not lose the true humanity of the Logos. Anyway, thanks.
He is fully human. He has our human nature. Human in every way like you or me. That is why he could eat, laugh, cry, bleed, and die. There is no pretending. That is why God was able to die. You said you didn’t understand how God could die, well that because you weren’t taking into account his humanity, and you also said you didn’t understand how he could know he was the Logos, not taking into account his divinity. He is both fully human and fully divine.
Thomas Aquinas and the Church have held his infused knowledge was at conception. Adam was created as adult, so his infused knowledge was given as an adult, but the incarnation of Jesus was at conception, so his infused knowledge had to be given at conception.
“The person who does not become irate when he has cause to be sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices. It fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all, the good to do wrong.”
St. John Chrysostom
c. 347-407
May we see some righteous anger from our bishops and priests, some fight for God and His Holy Faith and Laws, for the salvation of souls and the glory of God, as we struggle in a sea of evil.
Suddenly I have an Ann Barnhardt “Repost by Request” jogging through my mind. I don’t know why. I can’t quite place it.
I shall not enter into the discussion as to Bishop Barron’s orthodoxy; enough has been said about it already. However, I will note the following; St. John Paul was about to raise Fr. Balthazar to the rank of cardinal. However, Fr. Balthazar died suddenly before this could happen. The pope did then order that Fr. Balthazar be buried with a full cardinalate liturgy. My point here is obvious. Further Mr. Skojec states that hell is indeed a place. Yet, again St. JP has commented on that issue and stated that hell is not a place, but a condition. In view of this I will stand by St. JP’s position on Fr. Balthazar’s orthodoxy and his theological speculations.
Yeah… St. JP also made Roger Mahony a cardinal too. So let’s not get carried away here.
Not to mention Kasper and Lehmann!!!
Your case here might be a tad more persuasive if we didn’t know that St. John Paul also raised Godfried Danneels to the rank of cardinal in 1983. And some of us remember that St. John Paul strongly defended Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado for years. I think you can understand why at least this “point” you make may not be quite so “obvious” to the rest of us, and why we suspect the good pope wasn’t always the best judge of character. And speaking about theological speculations, wasn’t it St. John Paul who also famously once told us how similar Christianity and Islam really were one to the other, how we all worshipped the same God? It may surprise you to learn that some of us take strong exception to that assertion.
St. Pope John Paul II, in stating that Hell is not a place, was wrong.
Except he never said it was not a place but simply emphasized it as a condition.
John Paul II abandoned his flock to the wolves. He should never have been made a saint.
The common assumption that John Paul II endorsed Balthasar’s Christology and soteriology has less foundation than some people think. That John Paul II admired him generally is not an imprimatur for all of his theology.
>>Further Mr. Skojec states that hell is indeed a place. Yet, again St. JP has commented on that issue and stated that hell is not a place, but a condition. In view of this I will stand by St. JP’s position on Fr. Balthazar’s orthodoxy and his theological speculations.<<
Interestingly I don't really think there is a contradiction here.
Hell IS primarily a state of being, a condition. Specifically, the state or condition of the immortal soul removed from God and eternally dying the death.
Yet, if I understood my study of Aristotle (that philosopher so esteemed that he was referred to simply as "The Philosopher" by the Universal Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas) place is primarily a function of a physical body. The body is primary, prior, to place. Place comes into being by virtue of a physical body.
And in the End, when our bodies are resurrected and rejoined with our souls (both blessed sanctified souls with God, and the eternally damned souls in the state or condition of Hell) then those bodies will indeed have place.
Thus Hell is both fundamentally a state of being and secondarily a place in virtue of the bodies it contains.
Pope St John did NOT say that Hell is not a place. He said, in the original Italian, “more than a place, Hell is a state…”
I recall that statement by the pope; it was a cute notion. With all due respect, however, St. JP – as you termed him – has zero authority to make that statement as anything other than his own opinion.
If you open the door to cherry-picking private opinions of past popes, you just may find yourself tripping down the stairs to a hell it seems you ‘d rather believe is in your own mind.
As has been said by other commenters, he did not say it was not a place. To claim that he did would be to assert that he denied an article of the Creed, namely “I believe…in the resurrection of the body.” The bodies of the damned, as well as their souls, enter hell at the final judgement, therefore, it must be a place. Obviously it is a state as well, but to deny that it is also a place would be heretical.
Citation, please, if you have one.
St. JP II said a lot of problematic things. Nowadays, doctrinal orthodoxy is hardly a sainthood requirement, Witness JPII’s teaching on other religions, for starters. The cult around St JPII the Great is a bit ridiculous, really.
Mr Skojec Im not particularly a fan of Bsp. Barron but I cant shake the feeling that as much as you might try to be charitable there is just too much animosity in this piece. I’ll say no more but this: whether hell is full or empty is not for me to say – for when Christ was asked “Lord what will be of that man?” , He said: “what is that to you?”. But I’ll say that the Fatima prayer is: Lord Jesus Christ, save US from the fires of hell and take all souls to heaven, and aid especially those who are more in need of your mercy.
That prayer alone allows you to hope (not presume, hope) for universal salvation, for what good is prayer if you do not even hope it to be heard?
Great response. Thank you.
“How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” There is no hope for universal salvation.
Go tell that to Our Lady then, and may St. Calvin watch over you.
Just kidding, dont take offense. Anyway, note that He declined to answer straight whether “many would be saved”. That is His way of saying: ” this is not for you to know” and, perhaps, “but dont stop working and dont lose hope”.
The truth, the full truth is: it is simply not known, and since the CCC does not proclaim either that hell is empty or full, any opinion is your own. You should further recall that, while doctrine states that mortal sin means hell, it is also acknowledged that only God knows the hearts of men (and thus, whether or not they died in mortal sin).
Or perhaps, “Take all souls to Heaven” is a saint’s way of praying, “save as many as possible.” Which seems more likely? An empty Hell is wordplay and turns Hell into mere allegorical imagery. Scripture is quite clear that Hell is occupied unless one is determined to read something else into it.
Why do you think I am proposing an empty hell? What I am saying is that neither a full hell nor an empty hell are “de fide”, so far as I know. The possibility of hell is, I think, “de fide”, but not, again, the belief in how full it is.
If you want to understand it as “save as many as possible”, that is a legitimate understanding, but realize that you have no idea of how many it is possible to save – could this “as many as possible” be all of them? That is up to God.
As far as I am concerned, He declared that His will was for all men to live. If I am to be like Him and conform myself to His will, that should be my will as well, and it is with the intention that all men be saved that I ask all souls to be taken to Heaven. Will my request be met, in the full extent that I am asking it? Not the slightest clue, that is the thing about prayer, about asking for grace, that I never have any guarantee otherwise it would not be prayer but a transaction. But to ask, and to ask for it all, is entirely within my rights, indeed is what was recommended to me countless times in the Gospel.
But to wrap it all up, you might come up with private revelation going against what I am saying, and as you should know, private revelation can be taken in account but does not command belief. And that is all to say that any charge of heresy made against von Baltasar or Fr. Barron on these grounds would not be legitimate.
I mentioned this at ChurchMilitant.com in the past: Fr. Barron’s speculation that most people probably go to heaven is nothing new and was what I learned as a kid. I distinctly remember a sister in a habit saying: “We don’t think many people are in hell.” Nothing I have learned about the faith in subsequent decades ever contradicted that. I grew up understanding that fundamentalists thought people go to hell but enlightened Catholics knew better.
ChurchMilitant.com has banned me from commenting on their site.
I don’t see that there’s much basis for speculating about the numbers. What we do know is that those who die in a state of mortal or original sin go to Hell and that the Sacraments are efficacious in rescuing people from those states and helping to keep them away from sin. I think that we can also be reasonably assured that Hell isn’t “empty” (Was Christ trying to deceive us by making it sound otherwise?). God chose not to reveal the share of spirits that would suffer Hellfire. The point, though, is that the possibility of winding up in Hell is very real, and that, through the Church, God gives us the resources to stay out of it.
Actually He did reveal the share. “Few” find the way to eternal life.
Be thankful.
Consider it a complement and badge of honor
Came across both of these a few years ago, shocking indeed, but I believe to be very convincing
http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
as to there truth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc&list=UUCr70oy10mqkQjsS4X9_NMA
I wish people could stop seeing being wrong about something as the gravest moral failing and seeing suggesting that someone is wrong as a personal attack. Bishop Barron has made hundreds of YouTube videos and countless other public appearances. In my judgment (which, to be fair, I’ve only made casually), some of his material has been excellent, some has made apparently valid arguments for positions with which I still disagree, and some things here and there are plain wrong.
Barron puts his material online in places where people can comment, and he doesn’t seem to shy away from engaging with critical commenters. I don’t think that he takes disagreement personally. His defenders can relax and realize that he’s unlikely to find one more critic too traumatizing to bear. And his critics can disagree without turning it into a personal battle, too.
Church teaching ought to be presented in a way that does not confuse or mislead. This is about catechsis not speculative theology.
Frankly, I find his presentations boring.
Well, I think that that’s a valid criticism of his format. He is, in part of his life, an academic who engages in speculative theology. And then he serves as a catechist in other parts. And then he has various other interests about which he enjoys musing. And all of those things, each of which he has every right to do on its own, get mixed into the Word on Fire stuff… Sometimes, maybe, to ill effect.
For those lurkers interested in these captious questions about Jesus and His knowledge, below is a link to The Companion to the Summa by the great Walter Farrell who translates into everyday language the surpassing insights/knowledge/teaching of the Universal Doctor.
It is a great link to bookmark….
http://tinyurl.com/js6nvqw
This excellent piece, and the commentary about it, provides a snapshot of what is, in part, wrong with the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church; it has descended into personalism and popularity and which modern focus leaves us unfocused about Jesus.
Not a few of the write-backers in here are far more concerned about the reputation of a Bishop then they are concerned about the growing number of errors about who Jesus is and the meaning of what He says (apparently, He wasn’t serious about Hell being a place where most men go; many called, few chosen)
On one level, that is understandable because the Bishop seems to be orthodox in all things and because we are saddled with so many Bishops who are obviously material heretics, he has become a champion of Catholics who are sick and tired about being embarrassed by heretical Bishops.
But on another level, a far more consequential level, those same Catholics are not so concerned about Christology and what has always been taught about Jesus.
Think about that for a minute and let it sink in.
Men are more concerned about the reputation of a Bishop who is clearly heterodox in some things he teaches than they are concerned about Traditional Christology and they are wiling to bend over backwards trying to defend a popular Bishop while they seem willing to not only entertain material heresy taught abut Jesus, they are quick to side with that liberal/modernist heterodoxy.
It is almost as though there exists no knowledge/love of Tradition which. previously, had armed men against the advances of liberalism/modernism and the novelties it advances (usually under the guise of some modern scientific advances.)
Jesus is not ignorant.
They are and the more ignorant they are the more prideful they have become and that pride has led them to fall in line with the heterodoxy of a popular Bishops.
This is an excellent observation, and gets at the heart of the matter I was trying to present.
Thanks, Steve.
This is from Pope Francis’ interview on the plane from Africa back to Rome. Regardless of what he really meant, can most of us see here the possibility of words that could occasion real problems, problems like those caused by musings about an all-but-empty Hell?
“Fundamentalism is a sickness that exists in all religions. We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt. And, I say this because it’s my Church, also us, all of us. It must be combatted. Religious fundamentalism isn’t religious. Why? Because God is lacking. It’s idolatrous, as money is idolatrous. Making politics in the sense of convincing these people who have this tendency is a politics that we religious leaders must make, but fundamentalism that ends up always in tragedy or in crime, in a bad thing comes about in all religions a little bit.”
So you see? Bishop Barron is at odds with the Vicar of Christ. Methinks that hell may actually be populated by fundamentalist Catholics (the only unforgivable sinners).
Quite right. Personally, I’d rather be safe than sorry, so I always leave home armed. You just never know when one of those crazy Catholic fundamentalists will appear and start shooting up the place with his Kalumnikov!
There has never even been a Pope who spent so much time insulting and attacking the faithful.
He is a miserable boring scold who clearly hates those of us who love Tradition and reject his novelties.
Many think he is an exciting man with an exciting vision for the church but he isn’t; he rarely defends the Faith once delivered and his novelties are noxious and even his insults have become a bore.
I don’t know if he hates those who love tradition, but it’s pretty clear that he’s not in love with them.
Thanks Steve for your enlightening us on Bishop Barron who, by easy does Catholicism, must be the pied piper of cafeteria Catholics. He is clearly a feel good kind of guy and a great promoter. I guess it runs in the family. The unfortunate part for Catholics is that Bishop Barron does not believe in pre-Vatican II Catholicism and is a heretic in that sense. He, like Pope Francis, is leading folks down the wide road to hell. Let us pray for him, Pope Francis and everyone that not be taken in by these wolfs in sheep’s clothing.
Michael, take a deep cold look at yourself. You are the “wolf” that you speak of. Have you not read of the punishment in store for those who defame the good and cast unsubstantiated judgment?
Let us pray for each other that we will know the truth.
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Matt 7
Denail of EENS is the root of our present problems.
Hey Steve, always good to stop by your site. I don’t often comment, because it becomes an excuse for procrastination (I end up spending 30 minutes writing a long comment, when I should be doing work). But I just wanted to say something briefly, not regarding Bishop Barron, but regarding Hans Urs von Balthasar. In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote my dissertation on Balthasar, and I don’t hesitate to admit that he is a huge influence on my thought.
Just a few things:
1) Balthasar does not teach that hell is empty, that very few are in hell, that no one goes to hell, etc. He is not a universalist. What he does teach is that we can HOPE that ultimately all might be saved (sorry for caps; didn’t see an option for italics). To hope for this does not in any way deny that hell is a deadly serious possibility, nor does it de-emphasize or ignore the many, many clear teachings of the Lord on hell. Christ speaks constantly about the very real possibility of being separated from God forever as the consequence of your own freely chosen sin. He warns about hell not a few times but over and over again.
But the point (regarding Balthasar) is that we have to understand the Lord’s warnings about hell in the context of the whole deposit of faith, which includes the equally clear Scriptural witness that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2), that God hates nothing he has made (Wis 11), that the shepherd leaves the flock to go after the one who is lost. God never wants anyone to separate themselves from him, because each and every human person is his beloved, created through the only-begotten and eternal Son and intended by God to become sons and daughters in the Son. God will do whatever is possible to help us avoid damnation; this does not include coercing human free will, nor does it include anything that would contradict his goodness. But whatever is possible at all, he will do. And so Balthasar’s teaching is actually quite simple: it is that we must hope that God may be able to somehow accomplish what seems impossible, the recovery of all the lost sheep instead of only a few. Balthasar is not saying that this DOES happen or that it MUST happen. He is not saying that God’s mercy would be lacking is anyone is damned, as though hell is somehow unjust; this would contradict virtually everything that the Lord teaches in his public ministry. All he is saying is that God has frequently done what seems impossible to us; not just in terms of miracles but in terms of bringing sinners to redemption.
As for whether hell is a state or a place, the answer is not a simple choice between these alternatives. In one sense, hell is clearly a state rather than a place. There is no hidden region underneath the earth’s crust that houses the souls of the damned; John Lennon was right about at least that much. Hell is the state of having freely separated yourself from the presence of God (although an absolute separation would mean ceasing to exist at all, insofar as creatures only have being insofar as subsistent Being, God, continually allows them to participate in being). In another sense, however, hell is a place insofar as the human being is inherently physical and bodily, never exclusively a spirit. Because we are bodily, hell must also have a spatial and material reality to it, although not in the sense of a pit with pitchforks and dancing devils with pointy tails. All of this is primarily true of heaven: heaven is fundamentally the state of being in communion with God, but it also must be spatial and material in some way because we are bodily. Important here is the difference between our present situation and the eschaton, in which the human body will be raised and the universe itself renewed and changed by the consummation of all things.
2) Balthasar does NOT teach that Jesus has no knowledge of his identity or his mission prior to his Baptism. This would be openly contrary to St. Luke’s witness (which is really our Lady’s witness, insofar as Luke credits her as the source of the initial section of his Gospel account; “she kept these things, treasuring them in her heart”) that even at the age of twelve, Jesus already knew that God was literally (not metaphorically) his Father, and that he must do the work of his Father. But more to the point, such a position would be contrary to what Balthasar himself says about the mission of Christ. Balthasar (following St. Thomas, who says that the temporal missions of the Son and the Spirit correspond to, without being a necessary consequence of, their eternal generation and procession from the Father) teaches that Jesus’ mission is not just something he does; it is who he is, his very identity. He doesn’t just do the will of the Father; he IS the doing of the will of the Father, insofar as he is the Father’s eternal Image (“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”). So according to Balthasar’s own account of Christology, if Christ ever had a state of total ignorance regarding his mission, he would also be in total ignorance as to his identity as the Son; but this would mean that there was a time when he was not in the presence of the Father (“I know him, because I am from him and he sent me”). This is impossible, because the Father and the Son are one essence; not only is the Son always in the Father’s presence, but in terms of essence (not in such a way as to blur the distinction of the persons) the Son is the Father (“the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”).
Balthasar’s point, then, is not that Jesus ever lacks knowledge of his unique reality as the Son, nor does he ever entirely lack some knowledge of his mission (insofar as, again, his mission is nothing other than his eternal generation translated into time and space, and this according to Thomas and not only Balthasar). The point is, as St. Luke puts it, “and Jesus grew in wisdom” (Lk 2:52). That is, he experiences real human knowledge, which entails learning over time. He does not know his mission as clearly at age 12 in the temple as he knows it when the dove descends on him in the river at age 30. This is not a denial of his divine knowledge; it is an affirmation that in emptying himself, taking on the form of a slave, he humbles himself by allowing the Father to increase his human knowledge of his mission gradually over time, even though as the eternal Son he always already knows (he is the Logos itself). This humbling of himself is different from, but in continuity with his eternal relation to the Father, because he eternally receives his divinity from the Father by the divine begetting, and so his knowledge is also received always from the Father (in God being is knowledge).
No one who does the work of theology is perfect, and no one can claim to be without mistake in their theological writing. St. Thomas famously remarks (after being granted a mystical experience) that his entire body of work is as “straw.” Of course this doesn’t mean that his work is somehow worthless, it just means that there is always a chasm between the full reality of Christ and our ability to give expression to him. Balthasar’s work is not perfect, and I’m not claiming that everything he teaches is without mis-step. But I can’t ignore claims to the effect that he makes significant dangerous errors, that he is a heretic. Both St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (a personal friend of Balthasar for decades, who regarded him as one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century) knew that Balthasar’s work offered a great service to the Church.
One last thing: I apologize if anything written above seems patronizing, as if the reader is unaware of the basic theological principles discussed. My point is that Balthasar is very much within orthodoxy, not outside of it. As for Fr. Barron, I don’t know his videos well enough to have an informed opinion. I’ve only seen a couple of them. I do think that having a huge media presence (although a great thing for evangelization) can sometimes be problematic for a bishop (Dolan a great example of this). Brandon Vogt, with whom I have no personal familiarity, seems like a great guy, and he does important work in the new evangelization; he should have indicated his direct involvement with Barron’s online ministry when responding to critics of that ministry, and hopefully he will do so in the future.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond with a comment. Hope all is well for you and the family, Steve.
Yours in Christ,
Jordan
“The point is, as St. Luke puts it, “and Jesus grew in wisdom” (Lk 2:52).
That is, he experiences real human knowledge, which entails learning
over time. He does not know his mission as clearly at age 12 in the
temple as he knows it when the dove descends on him in the river at age
30. This is not a denial of his divine knowledge; it is an affirmation
that in emptying himself, taking on the form of a slave, he humbles
himself by allowing the Father to increase his human knowledge of his
mission gradually over time, even though as the eternal Son he always
already knows (he is the Logos itself). This humbling of himself is
different from, but in continuity with his eternal relation to the
Father, because he eternally receives his divinity from the Father by
the divine begetting, and so his knowledge is also received always from
the Father (in God being is knowledge).”
Your logic is flawed. This division between human and divine knowledge in Christ is a very dangerous concept. To be Divine is to possess all knowledge. You’ve taken the concept of Humility to a rather strange level. The Church always has taught that there are some mysteries that defy human understanding. We either accept them, or we eventually will fall into heretical theology.
No one is proposing a division between Christ’s knowledge as divine and his knowledge as human. Division is not the same thing as distinction. Chalcedon expressly rejects any division or separation between what is divine in him and what is human. On the other hand, it simultaneously rejects any mixture between what is human and what is divine, which is why the Third Council of Constantinople affirmed that there are in Christ two distinct (not divided or separated) wills, a human will and a divine will. But the human will does not act on its own, as though Jesus was a man merely ‘joined’ to the Son. Jesus himself is the Son. But his human nature is full and complete, lacking nothing (human body, soul, mind, emotions, will).
The Son possesses all knowledge insofar as he is a divine Person. But in his Incarnation, he does not make full use of what he possesses. He allows his knowledge to be limited, not because he can’t access his own omniscience, but because he humbles himself in sharing our human life. Think about the way that Christ works as a carpenter for years, earning money to support his mother and himself (after the death of St. Joseph, but prior to his public ministry). He has the power to instantly make whatever he might choose; there is no necessity for him to work for a living, he can create bread from nothing to feed his mother. The universe itself is his possession, all of it created through him. But he works by the sweat of his brow, shaping wood with tools and and his his human hands, rather than by his divine power.
So, too, the incarnate Son allows the Father to guide him, such that he knows only what the Father shows him, rather than experiencing an immediate and total knowledge of all things (which knowledge belongs to him by nature). The point is that all knowledge is his, but he freely gives up his experience of it, so as to learn as we learn (which is what St. Luke says about growing in wisdom).
Saint John the Baptist knew who Christ was even before he was born. Both Saint Joseph and Our Lady knew who Christ was. Perhaps they didn’t fully understand what was to come; but, they certainly understood Christ’s Divinity. I find it strange that we must perform philosophical gymnastics in order to refute this. Again, there are mysteries that best are left to themselves. The early heresies of the Church either rejected Christ’s Divinity or Humanity. It seems little has changed.
I don’t think that it’s a distinction between human and divine knowledge. I think the idea is that, as a human, he experienced human cognitive development. The infant Jesus had divine knowledge, but didnt have adult-like brain capacity. He would have had the experience of realizing an understanding of who he was in a different way as he matured, like other humans.
Mr. Jordan:
Thank you for the information presented in your post. However your post seems to conflict with Mr. Voris’ video presentations on this matter. I am not a theologian. I simply cannot read all the texts in question. Why the split in opinion between you and Mr. Voris on this matter? Can you explain?
Thank you.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
I haven’t seen any videos by Michael Voris on Hans Urs von Balthasar, so if there are such videos I can’t speak to their content. I have only seen maybe ten videos by Mr. Voris total.
Even in my limited experience of his videos, I have to say that I find his approach problematic. It is great to boldly and fearlessly proclaim the truth of the Catholic faith, without concern for public opinion. But there is a difference between watering down the truth to accommodate a sinful world, and presenting the truth with humility and concern for the person. I would suggest St. John Paul II as a model in this regard. He was not afraid to speak unpopular truths that made the world uncomfortable, but always did so with abundant charity and concern for the person.
Mr. Jordan:
Thank you kind reply.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Have you received a special revelation about hell not existing in a physical, nether region? Or is that just common sense to you?
In the post you’re replying to, you’ll notice I said that hell is physical. It must be physical, insofar as if we go there we go with our resurrected body, which is physical. Therefore the sufferings of hell must be bodily sufferings as well as spiritual. All of this was stated above in my original post.
But to say that hell is physical is very different from saying that it is a nether “region,” if by region you mean that it is a hidden location somewhere underneath the Earth’s crust. Hell is not a spot located inside the molten core of the earth; if so, we could (in theory) build a machine that could withstand tremendous temperature and pressure, and literally go to hell. So, too, if heaven were a located somewhere out in space, in theory we could travel there with a space ship (assuming that we could dramatically improve our current tech, and figure out how to get around the speed of light issue). But both of these suggestions are impossible. No one can travel to hell or to heaven in that sense, indicating that although both are physical, they are physical in a different way than anything we currently experience. They are not locations in the ordinary sense.
The reason for this is that we will experience heaven or hell not in our body as we know it now, but in our resurrected body. The resurrected body is physical and material (consider, for example, Thomas putting his fingers into Christ’s wound). But it is physical in a different manner than we understand. This is the point of St. Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:35-58.
So heaven and hell are not locations in the ordinary sense. But it remains true that the physical heavens (i.e., the sky, the stars) are constantly linked in scripture to the actual heaven (i.e., God’s presence). So, too, the physical nether regions of the earth are linked in scripture to the the actual hell. I would suggest that the reason for this has to do with the way that angels (including fallen angels) experience space. Angels are not bodily, therefore they do not “occupy” space as we do, or as animals or plants or rocks do. But St. Thomas teaches that angels are not for that reason omnipresent; only God is present everywhere at once in the fullness of his being (not bound by the universe, but transcending the universe). Angels are present in a certain location of space, not by having particles, but by having that location in their intellect. They are present where their mind is thinking, but because their mind is not infinite (as they divine mind is), they cannot be present everywhere at once. The point is that even though angels are not bodily, they do have spatial location in a certain real sense according to St. Thomas. Cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 52.
So it seems possible to affirm that even though hell is not a hidden spot underneath the earth, that the fallen angels are in some way condemned to occupy the core of the earth, whereas the other angels are free to roam the vast expanses of space. This would allow us to affirm that in a real sense the angels are “up” and the fallen angels “down,” even though they do not have bodies and heaven and hell are not locations that one can travel to.
When talking about angels and demons, it is always a good idea to say very little with certainty, because God has not revealed a whole lot about them. Speculation beyond what we know for sure is imprudent.
I take that as a no. You’re speculations are interesting and self-assured, despite your caution about speculation.
The only thing that was speculative was the last tiny part (about demons condemned to stay in the earth, and angels free to roam the physical heavens), which I indicated was speculative as a warning to the reader. Everything else is straightforward argument, not speculation.
You say that I am self-assured, but I am drawing on St. Paul (on the resurrected body), St. Thomas (on angels and location), and the Gospel accounts of the resurrected Christ (which indicate that Jesus is physical, but in a different, unfamiliar way — e.g., he appears in locked rooms, he is only recognized when he wants to be recognized, etc.). I have not relied on myself, but on Scripture and Tradition, and the application of reason to both.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then feel welcome to respond to the argument made. Thus far, you haven’t stated a clear position. Are you maintaining that hell is a location hidden inside the core of this planet? Are you maintaining that heaven is a location out in space somewhere, that (in theory) one can travel to? If this is not what you are maintaining, how does your position differ from what I’ve laid out here (recall that I emphasized that hell is physical, and that it is not merely a state of being)?
I never intended to state a clear position. I asked a questIon, which you answered. Sorry but to me it’s all speculation, even when it comes from eminent theologians. Since the Church hasn’t said anything definitive about the locations of heaven and hell, that’s how I see it. I’m very comfortable with “physical nether regions of the earth are linked in scripture to the the actual hell.” I don’t think it’s worthwhile discussing this further.
Fair enough.
I don’t see the point of even discussing the “hope” of what we know not to be true: Jesus Himself said “narrow it the path.. and few.. and wide is the door that leads to perdition and MANY go through it”.
Just from that it seems that it’s more likely to go to hell than to go to Heaven. And there is full agreement among the saints who have spoken on the subject since the beginning of the Church, that there are more people in hell than there are in Heaven. I don’t see what use is wasting time in silly theories. It can only benefit the interests of the demons in hell.
Regarding the “hope for an empty hell,” it’s dangerous to put such thoughts out there in this age when the media headlines (and messages in songs, novels, tv and films) will say: HELL IS EMPTY. WE’RE ALL GOING TO HEAVEN. A bishop should not play into that game.
Jordan, the problem is that you are seeking to establish that the view might not be bad, but what we saw when the Church was growing like wild-fire was a positive concern about hell as a real possibility, and a stress upon the importance of being Catholic and receiving the Sacraments.
They didn’t waste time speculating about ways to minimize the importance of conversions, nor endlessly praising other religions.
See Ralph Martin’s book. HvB says we can hope that all are saved, and that simply flies in the face of Scripture, no matter how you or he slice it. People go to Heaven and Hell. The BIble could not be clearer on that point. Exhibit A is Judas. Hans and Romano Guarding can’t see past their century here. “God desires that all men be saved…” A canard. He also desires that no one might ever sin. What is the point? There is no contradiction. You can write a million words explaining it away, but the “Dare We Hope” thesis is simply wrong and heretical, no matter how many dissertations, publishing houses, Bishops, or fans charitably explain it. Sorry for my impatience, but I am so entirely over this pained conversation. It is total. B.S.
To deny hell as being a place essential denies the general resurrection and final judgement of the living and the dead. The elect go to Heaven with their bodies, as Jesus Christ, and Our Lady are already there with their bodies and the damned go to hell with their bodies.
Its a pretty big deal to deny it, because it is explicitly mentioned in the Creed Catholics continually recite “I believe in the Resurrection of the Body and Life Everlasting”
I seem to recall one of his presentations where he basically denied that the genesis narrative was history but rather a “story” akin to a myth.
It is a myth (which does not mean it is false). I refer you to Ratzinger’s little collection of homilies about Genesis, _In The Beginning_, I think it’s called. We are not fundamentalists, we are Catholics.
One of my own bugaboos with Bishop Barron is his take on the Ascension of our Lord. “What I hope has become clear in the course of this discussion is that the Ascension of Jesus has nothing to do with a literal journey into the stratosphere, for that would involve simply a transfer to another position within “the world.” The Ascension is Jesus’s journey, not to another place, but to another dimension. But this dimension to which he has gone is not alien to us. It is instead a source of inspiration, power, and direction.” http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/05/28/ascension_plato_and_the_bible_106261.html I remember being attacked for critiquing his denial and no one, myself included was able to ever get him to address the question, “By what authority is he allowed to exclude the literal understanding of the events of Christ’s Ascension?”
The reinterpreted e destruction of Divine Revelation so it fits wth the putative truths of modern science is a miserable exercise that trivialises and relativises absolute truth and so such physical truths – Resurrection, Ascension, Eucharist – are explained away so as not to offend the modern academy which finds Divine revelation an inexplicable scandal.
On the other hand, there is Aquinas who leaves no doubt that Jesus ascended into Heaven and not to “another Dimension” (Divine revelation as a Twilight Zone episode starring Rod Serling as Jesus)
http://tinyurl.com/zbp5fyq
We see truth evaporated before our eyes in all manner of instances such as when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger described Mary’s appearance at Fatima as not a real event in which Mary descended from Heaven and appeared to the children but, rather, Mary’s appearance was a function of the “interior perception” of the kids.
Can you imagine what science would say about such a real appearance by Mary?
Heaven forfend
So, we haven’t got that going for us anymore either…
Within one hundred years, everything will be all intellectualised-away smoke and mirrors and then men will wonder why there is no faith on earth
Eh? He said what? He doesn’t make sense!
On an issue this critical (hell not Bishop Barron) I am inclined to error on the side of safety
any pronouncements less than a hundred years old are to me questionable if not suspect.
I am not likely to question or challenge canonized Saints, Doctors of the Church, the Apostles,
even approved apparitions let alone the Blessed Virgin Mary or our Lord regarding hell and the
chance of winding up there.
All the intellectual competition and speculation is dangerous I need to keep it clear and simple and
the further back I go in time the more I get of that.
http://saintsquotes.net/selection%20-%20fewness.html
To me , B Barron *seems* to be a very subtle, very careful modernist. I never found him appealing, even before I became aware of this “empty hell” nonsense.
It is sad, but not surprising, that not a few write-backers in here are content to repeat the claims about Jesus not always knowing who He was or what His mission was for the Shadow Church, long ago, ceased to teach the fullness of truth (AGW YES, Christology? No) and condemn error and so now anything goes, even heresy.
See 31-35 at the link below
http://tinyurl.com/cksfet
When popular prelates promote that which has formally been condemned in an Encyclical, and dogmatically taught/condemned in Tradition, then one is reminded of just how ignorant the modern Shadow Church is.
Jesus is not ignorant and He never lacked knowledge of who He was or what His mission was but our ignorance is paraded before the world proudly.
This situation is maddening and if it does not make men angry, then their souls are courting eternal death for we are being STARVED of Truth and lied to by those who ought to know better.
Why did the revolutionaries desire to kill the Roman Rite and replace it with an anthropocentric happy meal for women, children, and sodomites?
In part, it was because they had a new faith and they knew that men are primarily learnt the Faith through assisting at Mass as very few men are bestirred to study the Faith.
So, if revolutionaries desired to do away with that bad old judgmental Church, they had to kill the Real Mass and replace it with the Lil’ Licit Liturgy because the Real Mass had prayers teaching that Judas is in Hell and that simply will not do when revolutionary modernists desire to teach the man in the pew that Hell is not a place but a state/condition which we may reasonably now hope nobody experiences because civilisation of love in the springtime of the new pentecost for the easter people – or something.
Now, all dogs and men go to Heaven and so we have a Hell as emptied of men as modern man has souls emptied of the fear of the Lord.
In a very few places (conditions/states?) men can still hear the truth about Judas in the Real Mass but those who love the real Mass do not get elevated to Bishoprics, do they?
http://tinyurl.com/ndmvp22
People can’t be blamed for their ignorance (well, actually they can, but that opens up a Super Dome-sized can of worms) but, if they desire, they can become, no, not can, MUST become autodidacts because the Shadow Church will not tell them the truth because Ecumenism.
So, click on the link and read a few of its pages every day and in less than a month you will be spiritually inoculated against becoming infected by the diabolical diseases of liberalism/modernism
http://tinyurl.com/zm8uhu8
Re: Final Judgement and Bodies
I think that the Church teaches that at the final judgement our souls are reunited with our bodies. In the end we will all end up in either heaven or hell (may it be heaven for all of us). Since our bodies are a physical, corporal mass would that not mean that both heaven and hell are physical places?
Thanks
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Christ’s glorified body functions in a markedly different than our understanding of “body.”
Mr. Two2Trees:
Thank you for your reply.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Excellent article. For those who choose to defend the indefensible heterodoxy of Bishop Barron no matter how slickly presented, a sermon by St Leonard of Port Maurice should definitely end the nonsense. The sermon is titled “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved”. It’s well worth one’s time to read and digest.
https://olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Anyone wanting to know about the issue of Jesus and his knowledge, should listen to the sermon titled “On the dual nature of Jesus” on this page:
http://www.romans10seventeen.org/
The sermon can found on the 7th page, or by typing on the dual nature of Jesus in the search box.
I’ve been over Bp. Barron for a while. It’s a good idea to wait before purchasing a book and complete CD set of any popular “Catholic” writer. I wish I did. It only took me a couple of CD’s of then Fr. Barron’s “Catholicism” series to realize that I had made a bad decision. I chucked the book & the CD’s. What a watered down mess.
I have heard the virulently anti-Catholic crowd express greatest offense at it Catholic claims. But I’ve never seen it.
This article is quite intriguing in that Skojec insulates himself and Mullarkey against any reasonable rebuttals by castigating those who offer them as intellectually deficients that side with Barron because “Mullarkey’s ideas are bad because she is mean, and Barron’s ideas are good because he is nice and we like him.”
Nice try but I am not buying the hubris here. Both Mullarkey and Skojec’s articles here are quite deficient in presenting the entire truth of the matters being discussed. Focusing solely on this article, I would offer the following critiques:
1) In the critque on Barron’s teaching on hoping that all men will be saved, Skojec succinctly concludes that Barron’s teaching is “simply not the Catholic view” but the conclusion does not follow. First of all, Barron does not state that hell is not a physical place, but that “it is not so much” a physical place. That is obviously true as the current occupents of hell; fallen angels and all of those (if any) men and women who have definitively rejected God, are not currently in Hell physically. Angelic spirits and human souls are not properly said to be in a location but in a state of being. Thus, Barron’s analysis is completely in line with the Council of Florence’s teaching that “souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell.”
2) There is a regrettable massive confusion between “reasonably hope{ing] that all be saved” as Barron puts it and making a theological conjecture or hypothesis on the probability that no human being is in Hell. The Catechism defines hope as “the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and
eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and
relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy
Spirit (CCC 1817).” By this definition, I would argue that no only can we exercise hope in the salvation of each human person, but we are obligated to based on the dictates of charity. Irregardless, morphing Barron’s argument here into some kind of forced theological hypothesis is either illogical or dishonest. You decide which one you fall into.
3) The accusation that Barron “chooses instead to promote the heretical novelty of Balthasar that Christ had to learn about His identity through a gradual enlightening of His consciousness” is quite deficient and practically scandalous. It is traditional Catholic doctrine that Christ both had complete, perfect infused knowledge at every moment but also grew in acquired knowledge. Of course, there is nothing in Barron’s quote that undoubedtly expresses that he believes that Christ grew in infused knowledge. Also, the style of the piece proves it is not meant to make scientific theological statements as it is formed in the style of a meditative devotional piece. Of course, devotional works are subject to the laws of truth but the same standard of word by word scientific analysis is not warranted. On this subject, I would offer a counter-criticism to Skojec that this public accusation of heresy of a person is a grave violation of the requirements of justice, even more so since Barron is a pastor of souls. I would recommend a good confession to Skojec and anyone who has spread this libel on the internet.
I welcome any responses, including from Skojec. I won’t practice the same hubris that Skojec practices here by disrespecting the arguments of my interlocators.
I make it a rule not to engage with anyone who is so sure of their own spiritual superiority that they know whether or not I need to go to confession, and ensure that they tell me as publicly as possible that my soul needs tending to.
This is a sanctimony-free zone.
You misread me like you misread Bishop Barron. I never said you needed to go to confession nor commented that your soul needs tending. I merely recommended confession because of the gravity of the action you took to publicly accuse a bishop of heresy, especially one whose teaching ministry is relied upon in hundreds, possibly thousands, of parishes.
For someone whose professional resume has largely been built on the sanctimonious sand of throwing mud at the Vicar of Christ, I would have assumed you have slightly thicker skin to handle a rebuke.
Mr Bill Cloonan
Re: Hell – best to avoid it- II
If a bunch of egg heads wish to speculate in private on the number of souls damned to hell – fine. But as soon as said eggheads take this speculation public they are fair game for sewing confusion among the faithful and causing scandal. Bishops, or not, these speculators are not passing the deposit of faith to the next generation.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Afterall, there is a big difference between saying someone needs to go to confession and recommending he go to confession… Thanks for the chuckles.
But it is heresy. Ill defend Barron on a completely different level perhaps — but preaching the CHANCE of an empty hell is an explicit endorsement of indifferentism.
Isn’t that obvious?
First of all, I’m not even sure a layperson has the standing to even make a public accusation of heresy against any Catholic, especially a bishop, due to the juridical and canonical implications. The way the word gets thrown around on blogs would be comical if it wasn’t so damaging.
Second, unless you can refute +Barron that his argument that the Magisterium does not include a positive statement that any specific person is in Hell, you don’t have much of an argument. Also, if you read a larger scope of + Barron’s curriculum vitae, an accusation that he promotes indifferentism cannot be taken seriously, as his work consistently includes teaching that opposes indifferentism.
If we have reason to hope that hell is empty, then what does Christianity matter? So yes, if we have reason to hope that Hell is empty then we have equal reason to think that neither sin nor sanctity matter.
Secondly, I’m certainly not able to formally declare a heresy or anathematize, but I can certainly say what seems evident. Convince me I’m wrong — I don’t make it hard — although sometimes facts can.
This may sound flippant but the question is earnest: Are you saying that Catholocism puts me under obligation of codependence?
1.”I’m not even sure a layperson has the standing to even make a public accusation of heresy” Utter nonsense. Please cite a reference.
2. ” unless you can refute +Barron that his argument that the Magisterium does not include a positive statement that any specific person is in Hell,”
see Scripture on Judas.
“the sanctimonious sand of throwing mud at the Vicar of Christ”
Good grief. Sanctimonious? Hardly…
Sorry that I am late to this discussion, but isn’t it true that you need to go to confession? I believe it is true of all of us? I certainly need confession, probably more than I seek it…
I would recommend it for everyone contributing here, all of our souls need tending to, which is probably why we are reading at this site.
And, thanks for the comment section to share in the debate. I think all of the points made are worthy of discussion. My contribution would be with idea of Hell, or for that matter, Heaven being a place. What exactly does that mean in the spiritual existence, same for purgatory? This is one of picking nits for the sake of argument. A place requires a “where” so “where”is God, if not everywhere and “where” is Hell, if not separate from God?
If God is omnipresent, does that mean He is also in Hell? If God is in Hell, how can Hell be eternal separation from God?
I don’t ask for answers to these questions I ask, but simply point out how our understanding of place makes Heaven and Hell and purgatory more concrete for simple understanding, but it is certainly a simplistic understanding of spiritual existence.
Mr Bill Cloonan
Re: Hell – best to avoid it
I am a little confused by your post. Neither you nor I know what men are in hell. However we do know that hell exists. V II described it as a place of fiery torment. We do know that the damned will be reunited with their human bodies and burn in agony for all eternity. We also know that if a soul dies with but a single mortal sim on his soul he will be damned to hell. All of the foregoing is part of the deposit of faith.
The Church has never taught that few or none will go to hell. It has never taught that few will go to heaven. Instead it teaches us to live in grace and beware for we neither know the day nor the hour”.
If a bunch of eggheads wish to speculate on how many souls are or are not in heaven or hell – let them. But we live in an age where intrinsic evil (Abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, contraception, adultery etc) are the norm. Human nature being what it is we should focus on saving our own immortal sourols and aiding our neighbor to do the same.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Since you welcome any response, here’s mine. You would recommend a good confession to Skojec and anyone who has spread this libel on the internet. But I would recommend to you the use of a decent English dictionary. Your use of “irregardless” in the penultimate sentence of your second critique is jarring, to say the least. Here is what the Merriam-Webster has to say about this matter:
“Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.”
And, while we are at it, your answer to Mr. Skojec’s comment needs some tidying up too. You say, “For someone whose professional resume has largely been built on the sanctimonious sand of throwing mud at the Vicar of Christ….” What in the Sam Hill is “the sanctimonious sand of throwing”? You didn’t simply mix metaphors here, you dissolved them into incoherence.
Hey, you can make mud from sand, can’t you? Wet sand, anyway. ?
You certainly can, but that isn’t what he said. He talked about “sanctimonious sand” (?) as if it were somehow throwing the mud at the Vicar of Christ?!?!? It’s as if one talked about the “fulsome bottle of drinking ginger ale.” They are words, but they don’t make up a real sentence.
I wasn’t considering it that deeply. I just thought it was a very awkward metaphor.
Great stuff Johnny! Love your thinking.
Who are you to judge?
“Jesus has just been baptized. He has just learned his deepest identity and mission and now he confronts—as we all must—the great temptations. What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?”
++++++++++++++++ end of quote +++++++++++++++
The claim made is that until He was Baptised, Jesus did no know He was the Messias and even afterwards, Jesus had to face some existential questions the Bishop proposes for Him.
Those claims are entirely divorced from Catholic Tradition and because you defend them IANS recommends Confession tomorrow – and a vow of silence of at least six months because you are associating your own self with the Bishop’s assertion of Jesus’ ignorance; an heterodox assertion which has been formally condemned
Barron doesn’t make that claim.
Commenting on the finding of Jesus in the temple at 12 years of age, Barron writes elsewhere:
“So Jesus is preparing His Mother for His Passion and Resurrection. And while we’re only told about this instance, it’s reasonable to conclude that there were plenty of other instances of the same type.”
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/marys-foretaste-of-the-resurrection/4718/