Modernist Fr. Robert Barron placed in charge of Chicago Seminary
#51
(05-24-2012, 07:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:40 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:37 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 04:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Fr. Barron believes in universal salvation. I've heard him in context say that in one of his videos.

That's anti-Christian nonsense.

I just watched the youtube video on Hell if that's the one Vetus is talking about...

To be fair, he doesn't say he believes in universal salvation. He says firstly that we may pray that all will be saved and secondly that we may reasonably hope that all will be saved. I don't agree with him on the second point. But 'anti-Christian'? Come on...

We can't reasonably hope that all will be saved because that goes against what Christ Himself revealed in the scriptures. No matter each one's take on whether the elect will outnumber the reprobate or not, the fact remains that it's a revealed truth that there two classes of men in this life: the elect, who are saved by God's grace, and reprobate who are damned. We can't reasonably hope that all men are elect, unless we're throwing scripture out of the window.

In 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9, scripture tells us that God wills all to be saved.  Damnation comes through the reprobate refusing the grace of salvation, and while I don't buy the empty Hell argument, from scriptural argument it can't be said that we ought not to hope for what God wishes, that is for all to be saved.  Hope is different than faith.  We believe in Hell, but nobody is beyond hope of God's grace.

Hell is meaningless unless people actually end up there. It's not a sophisticated bogeyman to scare us into good behaviour.

God, who knows past and future and the depths of the hearts of all men, flatly declares that few will find the strait way that leads to life. God also says that in the last day many will claim to have worshipped Him but He will declare that He never knew them, casting them into everlasting torment. Finally, His infallible word also states that it is impossible to please Him without faith, which is a direct contradiction of Barron's "hope" that atheists can be saved. You do the math.

Finally, the argument about God wishing all men to be saved has been addressed hundreds of times here. It cannot be taken at face value.
Reply
#52
(05-24-2012, 07:15 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Anyway, Gerard is guilty of apriorism in his reading of Fr. Barron. He has decided that Fr. Barron is a modernist, and so he fits everything that Fr. Barron says into this preexisting structure. I doubt anyone who listened to Fr. Barron's discussion of the Ascension with an open mind would be able to identify it with what Gerard has described above.

That's bogus.  And you're guilty of what you accuse me of.  I was watching Fr. Barron and initially impressed with his obvious gifts. Then I noticed he was quoting alot of dubious theologians, I thought he might be trying to correct them.  And I read the full transcript of his beliefs about the Ascension. 

http://wordonfire.org/Written-Word/artic...tters.aspx

Quote: "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’ 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. And this is why the angels (denizens of heaven) who appear to the disciples just after Jesus’ departure say, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?” What they are hinting at, none too subtly, is this: under the influence of Jesus’ spirit, get to work! Do all that you can to foster the marriage of heaven and earth! Get on with the mission of the church!"

This is reminiscent of Joseph Campbell who tried to pass on the idea that God is so big, He's not really anything.  Because He's infinite, He can't be personal.  What ticks me off about Fr. Barron is the same thing, by what right and what authority does he rule things out?  Who is he to declare that the Ascension has nothing to do with the actual physical event as understood?  The language he uses debases the event.  I could just as easily say, "The other dimension is not literally  a source of inspiration, power and direction.  That would be simply a metaphor to rally around.  It's instead a real physical place, that will be our home and this miserable mudball we live in will be transformed not by our own hands, but by the power of God Himself.

Reply
#53
(05-24-2012, 08:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Finally, the argument about God wishing all men to be saved has been addressed hundreds of times here. It cannot be taken at face value.

Oh, so God was kidding when he inspired that part?  :LOL:

Seriously, I don't buy the empty Hell either, but Fr. Barron did not endorse it; he merely points out what is true, that we in fact must hope for the salvation of others.  We ain't Calvinists.
Reply
#54
(05-24-2012, 08:08 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:15 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Anyway, Gerard is guilty of apriorism in his reading of Fr. Barron. He has decided that Fr. Barron is a modernist, and so he fits everything that Fr. Barron says into this preexisting structure. I doubt anyone who listened to Fr. Barron's discussion of the Ascension with an open mind would be able to identify it with what Gerard has described above.

That's bogus.  And you're guilty of what you accuse me of.  I was watching Fr. Barron and initially impressed with his obvious gifts. Then I noticed he was quoting alot of dubious theologians, I thought he might be trying to correct them.  And I read the full transcript of his beliefs about the Ascension. 

http://wordonfire.org/Written-Word/artic...tters.aspx

Quote: "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’ 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. And this is why the angels (denizens of heaven) who appear to the disciples just after Jesus’ departure say, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?” What they are hinting at, none too subtly, is this: under the influence of Jesus’ spirit, get to work! Do all that you can to foster the marriage of heaven and earth! Get on with the mission of the church!"

This is reminiscent of Joseph Campbell who tried to pass on the idea that God is so big, He's not really anything.  Because He's infinite, He can't be personal.   What ticks me off about Fr. Barron is the same thing, by what right and what authority does he rule things out?  Who is he to declare that the Ascension has nothing to do with the actual physical event as understood?   The language he uses debases the event.  I could just as easily say, "The other dimension is not literally  a source of inspiration, power and direction.  That would be simply a metaphor to rally around.  It's instead a real physical place, that will be our home and this miserable mudball we live in will be transformed not by our own hands, but by the power of God Himself.

So, you think Heaven is in a cloud-bank?  ???
Reply
#55
(05-24-2012, 08:14 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 08:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Finally, the argument about God wishing all men to be saved has been addressed hundreds of times here. It cannot be taken at face value.

Oh, so God was kidding when he inspired that part?  :LOL:

Seriously, I don't buy the empty Hell either, but Fr. Barron did not endorse it; he merely points out what is true, that we in fact must hope for the salvation of others.  We ain't Calvinists.

No, He was not "kidding." I'll take that smilie as a display of ignorance.

You can interpret it in two ways: that God wills all kinds of men to be saved (white, black, rich, poor, tall, fat, English, Chinese, etc.) OR that God antecedently wills all men to be saved but that consequently only wills the elect to be saved. That's how you interpret that consistently with the rest of scripture and the omnipotence of God.

Barron says that we can reasonably hope that all men will be saved. This is plainly false.
Reply
#56
(05-24-2012, 07:59 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote: Our Lord's whole resurrected being, his two natures, including his physicality, ascended from this realm to the realm of Heaven. The measure of his body's levitation is really not the point. It seems to me like that is what Fr. Barron was trying to communicate.

But that's not what he says.  He admits that he doesn't believe in the event: "The feast of the Ascension of the Lord, which the church celebrates at the end of the Easter season, is, I admit, hard to explain to a lot of contemporary people. Jesus passed, in bodily form, from this world to heaven? Wouldn’t his body still be in some identifiable place within the solar system or the galaxy? I’m sure that the traditional formulation of the doctrine strikes many today as hopelessly pre-scientific and mythological. And even if we were to admit the possibility of such a transition happening in regard to Jesus, how would this in any way affect us spiritually? "






After explaining the Resurrection into a symbolic event.  "The first Christians saw the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the commencement of the process by which earth and heaven were being reconciled. They appreciated the risen Christ as the heavenly ruler of the nations, the one who would bring the justice of heaven to this world."
Reply
#57
(05-24-2012, 08:08 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: "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’ 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. And this is why the angels (denizens of heaven) who appear to the disciples just after Jesus’ departure say, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?” What they are hinting at, none too subtly, is this: under the influence of Jesus’ spirit, get to work! Do all that you can to foster the marriage of heaven and earth! Get on with the mission of the church!"

This is reminiscent of Joseph Campbell who tried to pass on the idea that God is so big, He's not really anything.  Because He's infinite, He can't be personal.   What ticks me off about Fr. Barron is the same thing, by what right and what authority does he rule things out?  Who is he to declare that the Ascension has nothing to do with the actual physical event as understood?   The language he uses debases the event.  I could just as easily say, "The other dimension is not literally  a source of inspiration, power and direction.  That would be simply a metaphor to rally around.  It's instead a real physical place, that will be our home and this miserable mudball we live in will be transformed not by our own hands, but by the power of God Himself.

Take a look at the clause that follows the one you bolded. Fr. Barron's point is that the Ascension is not about Christ moving from one place to another within the world. Instead, it is Christ leaving our world entirely and entering Heaven, which is not a place in the sky, but an entirely different realm.

Also, it is of course true that God is not anything. He isn't a thing at all. God is not a being like we our, but Being itself.

(05-24-2012, 08:25 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:59 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote: Our Lord's whole resurrected being, his two natures, including his physicality, ascended from this realm to the realm of Heaven. The measure of his body's levitation is really not the point. It seems to me like that is what Fr. Barron was trying to communicate.

But that's not what he says.  He admits that he doesn't believe in the event: "The feast of the Ascension of the Lord, which the church celebrates at the end of the Easter season, is, I admit, hard to explain to a lot of contemporary people. Jesus passed, in bodily form, from this world to heaven? Wouldn’t his body still be in some identifiable place within the solar system or the galaxy? I’m sure that the traditional formulation of the doctrine strikes many today as hopelessly pre-scientific and mythological. And even if we were to admit the possibility of such a transition happening in regard to Jesus, how would this in any way affect us spiritually? "

I'm not sure how you read this as Fr. Barron admitting that he doesn't believe in the Ascension. He is simply posing some questions that he will presumably then proceed to answer. That's what apologists do: answer questions people have about the Faith. I think the last question Fr. Barron asks here needs to be connected to what he says above. What he is saying is that it is not obvious how Jesus moving from one place to another within the world would have any spiritual significance for us. But as Fr. Barron rightly points out, the Ascension is not ultimately about Jesus rising into the clouds, even if this did actually happen, but about Christ ascending into Heaven, which is not a place in our world, though it is connected to ours in mysterious ways.

(05-24-2012, 08:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: After explaining the Resurrection into a symbolic event.  "The first Christians saw the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the commencement of the process by which earth and heaven were being reconciled. They appreciated the risen Christ as the heavenly ruler of the nations, the one who would bring the justice of heaven to this world."

I'm not sure how this quotation shows that Fr. Barron believes the Resurrection to be a symbolic event. What he is saying actually seems to be a very Patristic idea. Many of the Greek Fathers emphasized the idea that we are "amphibians," so to speak. We are both spiritual and physical creatures, and our role was to unite these two orders. Man was the high priest of creation who would link the material creation to God and the spiritual world in a more perfect way. St. Maximus makes this point when he says that through man the entire world will be divinized and God will be all in all. This plan was hampered by the Fall, but it is restored through Christ. The Church that He established is an anticipation of the Kingdom of Heaven which will, in the Eschaton, come to encompass all things.
Reply
#58
(05-24-2012, 08:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote: So, you think Heaven is in a cloud-bank?  ???

No. I suspect Our Lord manifested his power in a way that gave a display that would have a multitude of meanings concerning his return among other things.  It's a foretaste that His return isn't going to be in a quiet manger in the middle of the night.  It will be a big display of power.  

Question:  Did Jesus really walk on water in the literal sense?  

Did Jesus really calm a raging storm?  

Did Jesus really curse a fig tree and it withered instantly?  

Did Jesus really change water into drinkable wine?

If you don't believe any of those events literally took place, at least you'll be consistent.  But if you believe any of them, why would you doubt that the same person couldn't literally ascend into the air and disappear in a cloud?
Reply
#59
(05-24-2012, 08:52 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Fr. Barron's point is that the Ascension is not about Christ moving from one place to another within the world.  Instead, it is Christ leaving our world entirely and entering Heaven, which is not a place in the sky, but an entirely different realm.

He's not talking at that point on the matter of what the Ascension is "about."  He's talking about the phenomenon of the Ascension itself.  To say that the Ascension has something to do with a literal journey into the stratosphere automatically must "simply" involve a transfer to another position within "the world" is frankly assinine.  It's a deliberate misinterpretation of the traditional understanding of the event. 

Quote: Also, it is of course true that God is not anything. He isn't a thing at all. God is not a being like we our, but Being itself.

But Heaven is not God Himself.  Heaven and God are not synonymous, God created Heaven. 

Quote: I'm not sure how you read this as Fr. Barron admitting that he doesn't believe in the Ascension. He is simply posing some questions that he will presumably then proceed to answer. That's what apologists do: answer questions people have about the Faith. I think the last question Fr. Barron asks here needs to be connected to what he says above. What he is saying is that it is not obvious how Jesus moving from one place to another within the world would have any spiritual significance for us. But as Fr. Barron rightly points out, the Ascension is not ultimately about Jesus rising into the clouds, even if this did actually happen, but about Christ ascending into Heaven, which is not a place in our world, though it is connected to ours in mysterious ways.

No. You keep changing what he said.  He didn't say "even if it did actually happen."  He said it has nothing to do with a literal journey into the stratosphere.  And Fr. Barron is wrong. Jesus ascended under both the power he had as God and as glorified man together. It was a physical display every bit as real as walking on water, passing through the door of the upper room, changing water into wine.  He brought our human nature into Heaven with the Father in order to "prepare a place for us."  His physical body going to Heaven allows our physical bodies when glorified go to Heaven as well. 
Which ties into the Assumption as well.

Quote:I'm not sure how this quotation shows that Fr. Barron believes the Resurrection to be a symbolic event. What he is saying actually seems to be a very Patristic idea. Many of the Greek Fathers emphasized the idea that we are "amphibians," so to speak. We are both spiritual and physical creatures, and our role was to unite these two orders. Man was the high priest of creation who would link the material creation to God and the spiritual world in a more perfect way. St. Maximus makes this point when he says that through man the entire world will be divinized and God will be all in all. This plan was hampered by the Fall, but it is restored through Christ. The Church that He established is an anticipation of the Kingdom of Heaven which will, in the Eschaton, come to encompass all things.

No. No. No.  You aren't thinking like Fr. Barron tells us Jews thought like at the time. You're thinking like a Greek and that's bad.  According to Fr. Barron it's about good architecture and good preaching and "perhaps" good liturgy, y'know, to inspire us.  The anticipation you speak of is really about Man through the Church bringing the Kingdom of God to earth (a place) as it is in Heaven (not a place). The Ascension is 'about' the mission of the Church.  Creating a feel good, lovey dovey place here and now and then entering into "the mystery" of God just like a Buddhist monk. 

Also, we didn't really have a "fall" that just is myth to explain our evolution in which we are not yet perfected.  He hasn't mentioned it, but I would not be surprised if he's seeing us headed towards an Omega point. 

And saving souls isn't really a part of that Church mission because we can reasonably hope, assume, presume that Hell is empty of humans. (how a non-place is empty is strange but I'm just probably thinking like a stupid Greek still.)
Reply
#60
(05-24-2012, 08:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:40 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 07:37 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 04:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Fr. Barron believes in universal salvation. I've heard him in context say that in one of his videos.

That's anti-Christian nonsense.

I just watched the youtube video on Hell if that's the one Vetus is talking about...

To be fair, he doesn't say he believes in universal salvation. He says firstly that we may pray that all will be saved and secondly that we may reasonably hope that all will be saved. I don't agree with him on the second point. But 'anti-Christian'? Come on...

We can't reasonably hope that all will be saved because that goes against what Christ Himself revealed in the scriptures. No matter each one's take on whether the elect will outnumber the reprobate or not, the fact remains that it's a revealed truth that there two classes of men in this life: the elect, who are saved by God's grace, and reprobate who are damned. We can't reasonably hope that all men are elect, unless we're throwing scripture out of the window.

In 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9, scripture tells us that God wills all to be saved.  Damnation comes through the reprobate refusing the grace of salvation, and while I don't buy the empty Hell argument, from scriptural argument it can't be said that we ought not to hope for what God wishes, that is for all to be saved.  Hope is different than faith.  We believe in Hell, but nobody is beyond hope of God's grace.

Hell is meaningless unless people actually end up there. It's not a sophisticated bogeyman to scare us into good behaviour.

God, who knows past and future and the depths of the hearts of all men, flatly declares that few will find the strait way that leads to life. God also says that in the last day many will claim to have worshipped Him but He will declare that He never knew them, casting them into everlasting torment. Finally, His infallible word also states that it is impossible to please Him without faith, which is a direct contradiction of Barron's "hope" that atheists can be saved. You do the math.

Finally, the argument about God wishing all men to be saved has been addressed hundreds of times here. It cannot be taken at face value.

I think the correct context is missing here.  I distinctly remember this part of the discussion and the set up was Fr. Barron trashing theologians who claim there's no hell.  He said "Justice demands a hell" and goes on a bit about  "do you think Hitler ended up in the same place as Mother Theresa? Really?" and so on.  He then quoted Hans Ur Von B. and finally offers his own opinion, namely that "there is a Hell, and people do go there, but we can hope that it is not many.". Or something like that.  

In any event it was made perfectly clear what was his personal opinion and what was doctrine.  It would be heresy to say that hell does not exist, but not to differ in speculation about the quantity of souls in it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)