Modernist Fr. Robert Barron placed in charge of Chicago Seminary
#31
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

Bah on your Neo-Morality, defending Neo-priests Neo-talking about Neo-stuff.  :pipe:
Reply
#32
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

I know nothing of Fr Barron except for what I've read on this forum, since I don't read or watch videos of modern theologians. However, if he holds the opinions imputed to him in this thread (and previous threads dealing with him), and they seem to be well substantiated, what else do you call him?
Reply
#33
(05-24-2012, 03:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

I know nothing of Fr Barron except for what I've read on this forum, since I don't read or watch videos of modern theologians. However, if he holds the opinions imputed to him in this thread (and previous threads dealing with him), and they seem to be well substantiated, what else do you call him?

Yeah, don't base your opinions of Fr. Barron on these forum posts.  See for yourself.
Reply
#34
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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!

Of course some things can be discussed. But whether or not Adam and Eve literally existed, or Christ physically ascended into Heaven, or that no one is in Hell, cannot. Are you saying that people in here have slandered Fr. Barron?

(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

What is he then? An exegesis or tendency to naturalize miraculous scriptural events is...what? Is this not aggiornomento?
Reply
#35
(05-24-2012, 03:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

I know nothing of Fr Barron except for what I've read on this forum, since I don't read or watch videos of modern theologians. However, if he holds the opinions imputed to him in this thread (and previous threads dealing with him), and they seem to be well substantiated, what else do you call him?

Some of the stuff here is taken out of context. For instance, the statement about the Ascension was made while defending the doctrine against people who claim that it shows that early Christians were primitives who thought that Heaven was literally up in the sky. His point is simply that the Ascension is not about Jesus flying up to a magical kingdom in the sky. Most of the other ideas mentioned are also much more understandable in context.

I will say that I think he was wrong in saying that St. Bernard was wrong to preach the Second Crusade, but that's about it. Although, I've only watched his videos in connection with posts made about him on FE, so I haven't seen most of them.
Reply
#36
Fr. Barron believes in universal salvation. I've heard him in context say that in one of his videos.

That's anti-Christian nonsense.
Reply
#37
(05-24-2012, 03:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

I know nothing of Fr Barron except for what I've read on this forum, since I don't read or watch videos of modern theologians. However, if he holds the opinions imputed to him in this thread (and previous threads dealing with him), and they seem to be well substantiated, what else do you call him?

Some of the stuff here is taken out of context. For instance, the statement about the Ascension was made while defending the doctrine against people who claim that it shows that early Christians were primitives who thought that Heaven was literally up in the sky. His point is simply that the Ascension is not about Jesus flying up to a magical kingdom in the sky. Most of the other ideas mentioned are also much more understandable in context.

I will say that I think he was wrong in saying that St. Bernard was wrong to preach the Second Crusade, but that's about it. Although, I've only watched his videos in connection with posts made about him on FE, so I haven't seen most of them.

I'll just say this. If I was too rash or looked at this incorrectly, I apologize and retract what I said. If not, and what people have said is true, what I said stands.
Reply
#38
(05-24-2012, 03:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I know nothing of Fr Barron except for what I've read on this forum, since I don't read or watch videos of modern theologians. However, if he holds the opinions imputed to him in this thread (and previous threads dealing with him), and they seem to be well substantiated, what else do you call him?

Not everyone in "modern times" who is a heretic or just plain mistaken is a Modernist.  While all religious errors can spring from Modernism, not all religious errors do spring from Modernism--people have come up with religious errors just fine long before Modernism was invented in the 19th and 20th centuries.

For arguments sake, let's assume that saying Christ only ascended to the troposphere rather than the stratosphere before being translated (is that the right word?) to Heaven and that Adam's name was not really Adam are religious errors or heresies.  

For Fr. Barron to be a Modernist you'd have to show that these errors were the result of him believing that religion is essentially a matter of personal and collective experience, that there is no objective revelation from God to the human race on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, but that all religious beliefs are merely sentiment welling up from within a person or group.
Reply
#39
(05-24-2012, 04:15 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: For Fr. Barron to be a Modernist you'd have to show that these errors were the result of him believing that religion is essentially a matter of personal and collective experience, that there is no objective revelation from God to the human race on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, but that all religious beliefs are merely sentiment welling up from within a person or group.

No. You are only describing one aspect of modernism. Vital Immanence is only brought to bear in relation to the "Agnostic" personality of the modernist.  He's got to run down the credibility of the traditional understanding and then rebuild according to the vital immanence principle. 

You've got Fr. Barron appealing to the "Jewishness" of the "stories" in the Gospel and how we're poisoned by "Greek" thinking.  But if we understand how "the Jew" thinks of these events, we understand how Heaven is transforming the Earth.  It's right out of Pascendi and the reference to "transfigurations." 
Reply
#40
(05-24-2012, 03:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Some of the stuff here is taken out of context. For instance, the statement about the Ascension was made while defending the doctrine against people who claim that it shows that early Christians were primitives who thought that Heaven was literally up in the sky. His point is simply that the Ascension is not about Jesus flying up to a magical kingdom in the sky. Most of the other ideas mentioned are also much more understandable in context.

No, that's not what he was saying. He was saying the early Christians thought as "Jews" do and that we think too much like "Greeks."  And he picks and chooses what to take literally in the "story" of the Ascension as he sees it and then explains how early Jewish Christians would have seen it, not as a physical event but a "transforming" of the earth by Heaven and the point of the Ascension is how the Church needs to transform the world. 

Jesus didn't go "up" but he seems to buy into the idea that the "Apostles' were looking up but then the whole story is the Apostles "looking up" simply means to "imitate Jesus through the Church." 

He misses the point entirely. 

He sees human action through the Church as transforming the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.  He does not see the world as we do "a vale of tears" and admits it.   He does not even come near the idea that Christ will actually return and literally recreate the world by His own power and not through ours.  Same old abuse of the Church for Utopian liberalism.  Nothing new.

This is because Fr. Barron buys into a quaint and faddish 19th century notion that is truly bad science called evolution and that error informs everything about his faith. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)