FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Father Barron heterodox understanding of Adam.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
As you know Father Barron has made a series about Catholicism and of course he is another of the so called celebrity Priests. Though I understand the good Father to be orthodox it seems that some serious error has formed in his believe. This concerns Adam and weather he was literally a man or not.

Apologist Dave Armstrong makes and excellent argument point out Father Barron's error.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/f...m-was.html

Sadly, it appears that Fr. Barron is heterodox on this point of the nature of Adam. He can't deny that Adam was a literal figure and the first man, who fell, without this having dire consequences for the Catholic doctrine of original sin, per Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis (12 August 1950): one that was designed (in the subtitle) to counter "some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine" (my bolding):

By the way this is the same Dave Armstrong that destroys Calvin's arguments paragraph by paragraph on his so called masterpiece "Institutions."
After hearing him in this thread he is not orthodox.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...071.0.html
(09-25-2011, 02:33 AM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]After hearing him in this thread he is not orthodox.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...071.0.html

Well yeah, he doesn't have a beard...
Looking at Fr. Barron's replies in the comments section is also disturbing.  Many of them are condescending and display that modernist-gnostic attitude.  Very disturbing.
(09-25-2011, 07:51 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at Fr. Barron's replies in the comments section is also disturbing.  Many of them are condescending and display that modernist-gnostic attitude.  Very disturbing.

Those comments were apparently made by someone other than Fr. Barron.
Fr. Barron can only be considered orthodox by a gratuitous stretching of the definition.  He is a good example of what happens when a priest looks at Pope John Paul II's thinly obscured universalism and concludes, "I think I know what he is saying!"
(09-25-2011, 09:39 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-25-2011, 07:51 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at Fr. Barron's replies in the comments section is also disturbing.  Many of them are condescending and display that modernist-gnostic attitude.  Very disturbing.

Those comments were apparently made by someone other than Fr. Barron.

I read that somewhere, but I'm not sure I believe it.  The person is answering with his style of argumentation and makes no correction when they assume it's Fr. Barron.
(09-26-2011, 12:50 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-25-2011, 09:39 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-25-2011, 07:51 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at Fr. Barron's replies in the comments section is also disturbing.  Many of them are condescending and display that modernist-gnostic attitude.  Very disturbing.

Those comments were apparently made by someone other than Fr. Barron.

I read that somewhere, but I'm not sure I believe it.  The person is answering with his style of argumentation and makes no correction when they assume it's Fr. Barron.

Indeed the video speaks loudly enough without the remarks that may or may not be him.

He must recant. I am with Gerard on this one there can be no room for discrepancy of speculation he is bound to yield his mind to that of the Church.