Modernist Fr. Robert Barron placed in charge of Chicago Seminary
#21
I fail to see how Fr. Corapi was less of a Modernist than Fr. Barron, if we are going down that route.  :cuckoo:
Reply
#22
He's walking a fine line on the issue of Adam...

I'd like to know how he arrives at the conclusion that a literally named individual is somehow different from an individual who literally existed in the form of the first human being who is referred to in a merely abstract manner by putting a name (proper noun) to an individual (who literally existed). That's Adam. What sort of word-game nonsense is he pulling? Did Adam respond to Adam? I dunno. Maybe he responded to Bill. But he's Adam, and he existed. His semantics are grating on the brain. I guess the narrow and broad paths are a matter of depth perception.

Etymologically, it really doesn't matter if the name itself is derived from the ground, dirt, etc. That makes total sense in the way names start. John wasn't always just Yohanna, it means something; Yehoshua, Shmuel, Michael mean something, etc. They also refer to a particular entity, and take on a proper noun form as a name.

It's one thing to explore the literalness of a text, and quite another to become so well educated and steeped in abstract thought that the basic understanding that a word can be both a proper and common noun, particularly in such a context, is forgotten.

Building on that:
If there was no literal first human being, and really first human beings considering Eve and the whole one flesh issue, there is no original sin and this is all a farcical hologram wherein anything goes, God's a liar, and the moon is made of cheese, which Harry Caray wishes to eat.

I guess my only response to Fr. Barron on the issue of Adam would be: "Is that you John Wayne, is this me?".
Reply
#23
(05-24-2012, 01:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I fail to see how Fr. Corapi was less of a Modernist than Fr. Barron, if we are going down that route.  :cuckoo:

Corapi never doubted the miraculous, the origins of man, the physical Ascension, he certainly wasn't teaching Universal Salvation for mankind.  He also never trashed the history of the Church nor did he ascribe to any evolutionary models for devloping truths.

Believe me, I listened to Corapi with every skeptical sense I have.  His only flaws in his preaching were his blindspot over JPII and the usual EENS issues that those of us who agree wtih Fr. Feeney hold to.  And he's not a good linguist, so his Latin was questionable on occasion in his speeches.
Reply
#24
(05-24-2012, 11:47 AM)Allan Wrote: I actually liked his DVD series Catholicism.  If one believes in an incremental back-tracking approach to reclaiming tradition, his series goes a long way to undoing much of the theological nonsense out there now.

For example, in one of the episodes Fr. Barron does a really good hatchet job on open heretic Fr. Richard "Dick" McBrien on the issue of eucharistic adoration. 

He also denies the physical aspects of the Ascension and derides the saints who supported the crusades.

True, Fr. Barron isn't Fr. McBrien, but he's no orthodox priest either. 

I just don't understand why he's so popular with some folks here.
Reply
#25
(05-24-2012, 12:51 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Sounds good to me. Cardinal George obviously wants to settle things before his succesor.

I think Gerard was hoping for Father Corapi to get the gig. Hmmmmm. Gerard has a problem with a priest that has a media prescence, unless of course he is Father Corapi.

Do you have any proof that men will be badly formed, Gerard? Or that worse priests will come out under his leadership?

You are beyond creepy.

It is creepy to be wary of a priest who:

1) Seems to deny the physical Ascension of Our Lord?
2) Uses Modernist Scriptural scholarship and denies such historical truths as the existence of Adam and Eve?
3) Publicly calls out and makes judgment upon saints who supported the Crusades?
4) Denies the Church's traditional teaching on salvation?

Come on, Adam Wayne.  These aren't little matters.  These aren't hallmarks of an orthodox priest.  Should we be happy that the head of a major seminary will be teaching its seminarians that Adam and Eve aren't real people?
Reply
#26
Fr. Robert "in the end all people will be saved" Barron.

A man who turns his religion into a self-refuting proposition.
Reply
#27
(05-24-2012, 01:05 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: What does that prove, MRose. In what context was that said?

In the context of the article, I think it comes off as a snide remark toward the TLM, along the lines of "There is a new translation of the Mass (novus ordo) which is better and more faithful to the Latin, but DO NOT WORRY it is not the old Latin Mass, we would not want such a thing, so don't worry, it is a-ok."
Reply
#28
Thank you, Gerard, for this post. Thank you (and Walty as well) for bringing out what certainly appears to me to be modernist and heretical statements. I found the point about even orthodox NO or regularized priests quite telling. I have some friends in Texas who know Fr. M. Rodríguez, and that situation is quite sad. Same goes for Fr. Guarizno.

Tim, I agree with you. I honestly think that the enemy is tempting souls. I can personally attest to cases where long time trads have seemingly left the Faith, and I myself am constantly being bombared with temptations against the Faith. Thank God for ember days next week. I need to do some fasting and penance.
Reply
#29
(05-24-2012, 02:20 PM)Walty Wrote: It is creepy to be wary of a priest who:

1) Seems to deny the physical Ascension of Our Lord?
2) Uses Modernist Scriptural scholarship and denies such historical truths as the existence of Adam and Eve?
3) Publicly calls out and makes judgment upon saints who supported the Crusades?
4) Denies the Church's traditional teaching on salvation?

Come on, Adam Wayne.  These aren't little matters.  These aren't hallmarks of an orthodox priest.  Should we be happy that the head of a major seminary will be teaching its seminarians that Adam and Eve aren't real people?

Like I said, if these allegations are true, then this is pure, vile modernism. Heresy. It's worse than any other heresies, because clerical garb, a Roman collar, and a seeming cloak of orthodoxy cloud these heresies, or make them appear not as bad, not as serious. Like a song I like says "Your enemy won't do you know harm / 'cause you know where he's coming from."

This reminds me very much of my NO years and my NO high school. A quasi-modernist examination of scripture. A questioning of the Crusades, inquisition, and so on. It wasn't until I became a trad that I fully believed and professed that Sacred Scripture is inerrant.

This is what modernism is, folks. "All of us are on the same path to God, the supreme being, the higher power, whatever one wishes to call him. There are many different religions, but we're all going to the same place" (heretical indifferentism). This may not seem like universal salvation, since it is an essential negation of Hell, but it still is quite modernistic to say that "we can believe or hope that no one is in Hell." Very imprudent, if I may say.

One of the only serious fellow Catholics at my NO High School (erring in good faith, I hope), wrote that Hell was just a dark "void," and no one was in it except Satan, who was like a specter. He didn't even put Hitler in his version of Hell, which usually all people, including indifferentists or subjectivists, do.
Reply
#30
I'm glad that we can viciously attack anyone who happens to disagree with us even slightly. We're the good guys after all! We don't need to worry about that silly "morality" stuff! For the cause!

Fr. Barron, while holding some debatable ideas, is not a modernist, and calling him one strips the term of all historical context, though I suppose the term has long since ceased to mean anything more than "anyone who disagrees with me" for some.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)