Thursday, September 4, 2014


Father Robert Barron, not old enough to be a Monsignor , to be named Archbishop of Chicago, but you didn't read it here !


Anonymous said...

Well it's a good fit. Fr. Barron doesn't believe in Hell so he should be a good fit. But honestly my money was on Fr. Michael Phlagher.

Unknown said...

Are you *currently* being sent into Hell forever ... automatically excommunicated (outside) of God’s Catholic Church ?

Answer: Yes you are ... you can reverse it ... please continue.

Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- infallible Source of Dogma >
"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.

Site > ... infallible Dogma throughout.

The Catholic Faith *is not* Bible interpretation ... it is the Catholic infallible Sources of Dogma. The Catholic Church didn’t even define the Bible’s New Testament Canon until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage.

- - - -

Can a group which enforces the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic unchangeable Dogma be the Catholic Church?

No, it cannot possibly be the Catholic Church ... and promotion of the opposite of the Catholic Dogma is exactly what the vatican-2 heretic cult does ... and has been doing since it’s founding on 8 December 1965 at the Vatican.

The vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy ... only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

The Dogma cannot “change” or be “reversed” ... God does not “change”.

The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies *against* prior defined unchangeable Dogma. Every (apparent) bishop at the “council” approved the mountain of heresy, which caused their automatic excommunication, see Section 13.2 of the below site.

- - - -

Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) ... followed by many Catholic corrections.

Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic *proof* of heresy at the Vatican.

Because of … the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the v-2 cult) …

… we were all placed, body and soul, *outside* of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”.

Section 13.2 > Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or participating in a heretic cult such as ... vatican-2, lutheran, methodist, evangelical, etc.

Section 107 > St. Athanasius (died 373 A.D.) ... “Even if the Church were reduced to a handful ...” - - during the “arian” heresy ... we are there again, but worse.

Section 13.3 > Matt 16:18, Gates of Hell scripture ... is *not* about the Office of the Papacy ... four Dogmatic Councils defined it ... that heresy will not cause the Dogma to disappear.

Section 13.4 > The vatican-2 heretic cult does not have the Office of the Papacy only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

Section 13.6 > The Catholic Dogma on Jurisdiction and Automatic Excommunication for heresy define that ... God has allowed Catholic Jurisdiction ... for Mass and Confession to disappear from the world. There is no such thing as Catholic Mass outside of the Catholic Church.

Non-Catholic heresies such as “vatican-2”, “sspx”, “sspv”, “cmri”, etc. ... do not have Catholic Mass.

Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for *re-entering* Christianity (the Catholic Church) … after being automatically excommunicated. A Formal Abjuration is provided here also.

Section 10.2 > Returning to a state of grace, in places and times when Confession is not available, like now.

- - - -

Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. -- infallible Source of Dogma >
"The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."

Blessed John Eudes, died 1680 >
“The greatest evil existing today is heresy, an infernal rage which hurls countless souls into eternal damnation.”

Everything you must know, believe, and do to get to Heaven is on > >

Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us

Anonymous said...


Cameron said...

fine by me

Gene said...

Sounds like Victoria cuts right to the chase…cue Marc…where are you?

rcg said...

Vicky D. , a fave of Fr Fox (Bonfire of the Vanities).

I have to wonder about that choice. Very good communicator. I don't know how mature he is.

Rood Screen said...

How we long for shepherds concerned for the salvation and protection of their sheep, instead of for self-promotion and the applause of adoring crowds.

Pater Ignotus said...

I think Barron is more valuable to the Church as a seminary rector/teacher. He has an amazing grasp of theology and history, but his ability to present that in a cogent, meaningful way is a great gift to the students at Mundelein, as well as to any group he addresses.

JusadBellum said...

A lot of bishops were former rectors of he's definitely on the right career trajectory for a bishop.

On the matter of hell. He generally likes Von Balthasar's theological style which did dabble close to the heresy of universal salvation. I think it's just one of those theological excursions of wild hope in God's mercy rather than a full blown heresy of asserting for sure no one stays in hell forever.

I say this because great theologians tend to not be great philosophers. And they tend not to know great moral evils of their age. So a theoretical understanding of humanity or a paucity of human experience (chiefly gleaned from their own immediate circle, what they could find in a college town) might make them think all sinners are college kids (stupid, foolish, drunk and thus not in their right minds, not malicious, not evil geniuses who commit evil with malice aforethought).

If your own 'real experience' of evil is local and superficial and your theology is heavy on exegesis and theory but light on the insights of the saints and martyrs, you almost have to conclude that sin is not such a horror as much as just bad taste, poor judgment, foolishness and silliness.

But if you've known genuine moral monsters, seen real traumatic devastation, felt the hot blast of hellish devotion and the ice cold dread of a dead conscience, the idea of an eternal hell freely chosen precisely because it's not Good can become unavoidably real. Hell was not made for man but for Satan and his angels. So to fall into hell is indeed to fall into an inhuman fate.

It's shocking and a horror to us because it is a horror.

As for its eternity, well, there's the Lord's words and that ought to suffice. He's all merciful but if He himself warned us of eternal fire, who are we to doubt it?

You know, I would pay good money to see a theologian debate a philosopher on these subjects. I'd like to know how it's metaphysically possible for human beings to be truly free and yet not capable of making an eternally significant choice. Our will is fickle, but in the moment of death if that fickle will is turned towards God how could the person not go to God? Conversely if the soul is turned from God how could God annul that free choice?

As CS Lewis said, it's not a question of LIKING the idea of hell. It's a question of truth.

Rood Screen said...

If there's no Hell, then there's no Devil. If there's no Devil, then there was no one from whom Christ needed to redeem us. And if there's no Redemption, then there's no need for the Church, so just keep your Stewardship Appeal money for yourself! For that matter, let the pop-star priests get normal jobs, and stop selling their wares to consumers who apparently don't need what Christ has to offer them anyway.

Православный физик said...

Something tells me Pope Francis will likely go with someone who has not been a Bishop before

rcg said...

I have heard that Heresy discussed, if not preached from the pulpit. We don't need a priest, or bishop, thinking out loud in front of the laity. OTOH it is good that he ponders such things because they will come up again when he defends Church teachings. I hope he has all of that ironed out before he spends the next four decades as Bishop of Chicago.

Marc said...

Gene, since you mentioned me, I feel compelled to chime in. Here's my only thought:

It would surprise me if the bishop of Rome appointed an orthodox bishop to Chicago or any diocese.

Militia Immaculata said...

Anonymous at 6:47pm:

I don't know where you got the idea that Fr. Barron doesn't believe in hell, but it's utterly false. He has said specifically that there is. Calumny and slander are mortal sins, you know.

Jusadbellum said...

On his youtube videos about Von Balthasar he ponders whether hell is eternal or not.

So the issue is not whether hell exists or not. It's whether people stay in hell forever or get out after a more or less long period due to some inscrutable mercy of God or freedom to repent of evil will after death. It would seem that Von Balthasar suggested that as a "possibility" or hope and so did Fr. Barron.

But while is sounds so NICE, it's stupid and wrong because we know hell is eternal and people who go there never come out and this comes from Jesus' lips. So what point is there to doubt it out of horror?

Yes, it's horrible. That's why we call it...hell!

Rood Screen said...

Militia Immaculata,

I think the broader worry is about increasing the prestige of pop-star clergy who cultivate their own fame by constantly watering down the more demanding truths and disciplines of the Faith. Perhaps the Church needs fewer self-promoters as bishops and more Christ-promoters.

JusadBellum said...

Other than this lone area of speculation, Fr Barron is justifiably known as a rock solid proponent of Catholicism and I've not heard any other questionable subject or theory cross his lips - and I've watched dozens and dozens of his youtube videos. I'm definitely a fan of his.

He's got zeal and evident devotion to Mary and the saints, he 'gets it' in the right places. So he's not some rabble rousing heretic.

He admits to having studied under some people who were borderline and having had a conversion of sorts through the works of St. Theresa. So I'm not saying he's bad. He's great.

It's just that on this subject, I think his deference to Von Balthasar blinds him. Now VB is a great theologian - he wrote ALOT that is really rock solid and beautiful actually. But again, I think it's a case of theological speculation run amok out of emotionalism rather than a more steely, ontological analysis of the doctrine of hell and mystery of human free will.

Rood Screen said...

If there's no Hell, then why did Christ have to die, and why have so many missionaries given their lives for the conversion of souls? To doubt the existence of Hell, and the possibility of ending up there, is to undermine the whole point of Christianity. This isn't a side issue.

Gene said...

Coming from a Reformed/Calvinist, this is a very familiar theological discussion. Calvin's TULIP theology, in its neo-protestant manifestation, leads to a universalist solution. Christ's sacrifice and grace are so overwhelming (irresistible grace/total depravity) and triumph so completely over evil that evil/Hell are ultimately destroyed. The blacker our sin, the more wonderful and triumphant His grace. This is usually accompanied by the logical/philosophical caveat, "if God is all good and the creation is good, then how can there be an eternal place of evil?" (Augustine is often brought in to support this because of his Platonic struggles with evil being just "less good" on a neo-Platonic sliding scale. Augustine never adequately dealt with this and it is one of the problematic issues with his philosophy.)
Neo-protestant universalism gradually infiltrated the major grad schools and seminaries through the 60's and 70's until I believe it is all that is now taught where they believe in God at all.
Understand that this is not at all what Calvin taught or intended, nor was it Augustine's theology, either. The issue is actually a philosophical one of logic (which means it is a head game) and not a theological one. God's inscrutable and perfect will is not hostage to philosophical logical systems.
This is where Calvinist theology found Kant to be such a good companion…there can be no such thing as "philosophy of religion" because philosophy cannot speak of the meta-physical. This is one place where Catholic theology might be instructed by Kant, of whom Catholic theologians have not been fond, because Kant is the broom which sweeps away all such philosophical yakking about universalism, etc. Kant's duty ethic (Categorical Imperative) is also about the closest thing to a "Christian ethic" in the philosophical world.
Anyway, regarding universalism, if you think you are going to see Hitler, Brigham Young, L. Ron Hubbard, or the Dali Lama in Heaven, forget it.

Gene said...

Addendum: Regarding humanism, modernism, philosophical narcissim, and bad theology generally, thank the 17th Century rationalists (a la Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza). Once you make the "cogito" the premise of existence and rational thought, it is down the chute to humanism, existentialism, nihilism. A good discussion could be had (has been had) regarding whether Kant saw this and, thus, developed his Critique of Pure Reason (German students used to read this in English because the translation was easier to understand than their own language version!) and his critique of metaphysics in general, not to mention his uncompromising duty ethic.
So, "I think, therefore I am" replaced, "God said…" therefore I am…and here we are today in a dying culture with the Church under constant attack by an Enlightenment rationalism that, despite his good intentions, began with Kant.( Oh, and if there are any philosophy students or profs out there on the blog, could you please explain to me how we got from Kant to Hegel. )

Anonymous said...

And if you think Gene has replaced God in making the decision as to who does and does not enter heaven, think again.

The tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom ahead of him.

Gene said...

Anonymous, the last sentence was a sort of hyperbole, which you obviously either do not get or choose to misinterpret. Now, do you have anything of substance to offer in the discussion? Talk to us about Augustine or Kant…what are the philosophical underpinnings of your modernism/unbelief. C'mon, show us your stuff...

Jusadbellum said...

The thing about philosophy is that many of the 17th century philosophers DID NOT read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa and refute it. They either didn't know it existed or ignored it.

Gene said...

You are correct, jusadbellum. I think they knew it existed, but it was pretty much ignored except for some academic interest in his proofs of God's existence. Then, by the 18th century, it was "metaphysics" and therefore of little interest.