I don't think Bishop Barron is trying to 'ad lib away the faith', I think rather that he wants to be seen as sensitive to the pastoral needs of those under his care, and he tries to maintain the faith and yet still 'be understanding' and sometimes this leads him to soft soap on some of the topics that 'modern people' find troubling or scandalous aspects of the faith, I don't think he teaches heresy, I think he tries too hard to 'be pastoral' and it leads him to express himself is a way that can be misleading and ambiguous, but to cover up the intentional ambiguity, he first tries to filibuster in the apparent hope that his audience will stop listening.

what is really perplexing is that these people actually spend time in the Real Presence. So how can they come up with such nonsense?

but then again.. now that I think about it, how many Catholics actually spend a lot of time in the Real Presence?

no, they go to Mass and that is about it

whatever you call it, it is leading people to hell

Remember death and you will not sin, some saint once said (or maybe that's in the Bible? yes, i think it is.. (Proverbs?)

problem is, priests aren't remembering death much t hese days, much less what will come after death

It is really bad when (and I am not saying that's what's going on here but really bad when) people care more about what others think than the truth.. especially when the truth in question is the Truth that leads ultimately to One Place or the Other

I would greatly appreciate it if you would avoid malign sweeping statements about priests.

I don't think you're being fair to Barron, fa. Listen again to the interview. Really listen. He says, for instance, "you CAN be saved," complete with emphasis on "can." And that's true. Granted he doesn't spend time explicitly enumerating the things Ben might do or be doing or believing or not believing that, if nothing changes, almost certain would result in his damnation. But Ben's question was very pointed: "Am I screwed?" And the answer to that is, "No."

He continues by denying relativism itself just after the one minute mark, but then a second time emphasizes the possibility ("you CAN be saved") of salvation, even as he has just asserted that even such possible salvation is by the grace of Christ, even if received "indirectly." Barren then uses the atheist of good conscience as an example, which is interestingly an example that got Francis himself into trouble some time ago. But it has been recognized that, in theory, an "atheist of good conscience" certainly can be saved precisely because of what following the conscience would mean!

Now, Ben isn't a stupid guy at all. He asks what seems to me a very pertinent follow up--he seems to feel that Barron is presenting Catholicism as an "act based" religion like Judaism, where if you do right you are saved. And he asks that in opposition to a "faith based" religion, where what you do doesn't matter but rather what you believe (i.e., can you pass the theology test). Barren tries a middle way and characterizes Catholicism as a religion of love. Again, he asserts that you do have to "accept that love as an act of faith" which he explicitly ties to "this great offer in Christ." He then argues that we must cooperate with grace so that the divine love may work with our love that we might be drawn into the divine nature of love: "grace and cooperation with grace, which manifests itself in a life of love--and that's what salvation consists of."

In other words, for Barron, the issue is love, and a person who truly follows their conscience, atheist or Jew or whatever, is loving precisely because they respond to the love of God in Christ. And all of that is true. Of course, it's also true that such a person, in their love for God, would come to love Christ as He is--as God in the flesh and the second Person of the Trinity--and so on. But I think Barron's strategy is to recognize that it is not primarily good theology that saves but rather cooperating with God's grace, that requiring an acceptance of some theological truths to be sure (which Barren affirms) but not driven by it. He wants Ben to ask himself if he really is a man of "good will." Ben might be inclined to say yes out of a desire to justify himself. We see that in Scripture. Or he might through this ask himself if he really is loving as he should be, and if not, how might he cooperate with God's grace to become that? It is the kindness of God, remember, that leads us to repentance.

So just a different perspective. I don't think Barron sounds like a universalist at all. I think you can take certain lines out of context, but if you really listen to him, I don't hear that as a valid criticism. He says, with you, that salvation is only by Christ. He just seems to think--or at least in this interview, as I'm not familiar with his other work--that a more effective way to reach lost souls is to show them the better, and indeed the more demanding, path of love.

As an aside, recognizing this isn't the apologetics forum: one of the reasons his gospel doesn't sound universal to me is that it sounds like a "gospel" that will condemn every human being alive to hell regardless of their faith in Christ. I hear absolutely no good news in it whatsoever, and I think Ben at least is smart enough to hear that, or at least echos of that, too. But that's just my own opinion and interpretation. In general, I just wish you'd be a little more fair to the man in your disagreement.

Haha, as always, beaten by Obi. He got to my point is a few words, as is usual, whereas it took me paragraphs! Not saying he would agree with anything like all of what I wrote, of course. But still, his basic point is certainly the same as the one I was trying to make. Stop maligning priests, including this one, just because you disagree with him or better just because he approaches difficult questions in a different way (not different theologically but different methodologically) than you would.

My concern was not simply his statements about +Barron, but several broad sweeping generalizations detracting priests.

Trying to teach that Christ was ignorant of things and that He later learns of His messianic duty should garner attention beyond eyebrow raising. From what I have seen on this issue, it appears to be a serious error or even heresy.

This was, in my not so humble opinion, an utter disgrace. They gave the peace price to a man simply because he (temporarily) stopped killing people.

It's prominent in New Natural Law circles too. Reason #3,852 to reject that system.

And they violated one of the main rules that are supposed to govern how to award the peace prize: that it rewards actual, meaningful past accomplishments which have already proven to be lasting, but that award was given in anticipation of a future accomplishment that they assumed would be meaningful, an accomplishment which never actually took place at all. And the same was true of other recipients, including Henry Kissinger (who won the award for the Paris Peace Accords that never actually brought peace) as well as the award to Barrack Obama and the one given to Nelson Mandela as well (although in that case, it did work out reasonably well).

Jesus DID have to learn things. In the Bible it talks about him learning and being perfected

he had a human side

I am talking about Christ being ignorant of something, and then later satisfying that ignorance through human learning. Not learning in and of itself.

Christ knows everything because He is God, but he can "learn" things in a human way what He already knows through Divinity. This is because Christ simultaneously possessed the Beatific Vision and subjected Himself to our human state.

Barron makes it clear that Christ has ignorance and then realized and learned of his Messianic duties:



And:




https://web.archive.org/web/20150226180 ... he-damage/


The former quote is very troubling. The latter states he “just learned” and now must go through trial where questions are asked, “What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?" – as if Christ didn’t know the answers.

So, Mary awakens the consciousness and the baptism in the Jordan makes it so that He “just learns” (i.e. at that movement) of a clearer picture of his duty. Off to the desert to try to figure more things out then.



Square it with these:

Pope St. Pius X:

The following has been condemned: “Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm



Pope Vigilius:

“If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and true Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another, revealed to him, anathema sit.” (Pope Vigilius, Constitutum I of 14 May 553)

Pope Pius XII:

“The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

[Always possessed the Beatific Vision and hence could always see everyone He loved and His redemption for them]

Or as St. Thomas says:

“What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act; for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot. Now man is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God. […] Now men are brought to this end of beatitude by the humanity of Christ […] And hence it was necessary that the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, should belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect.” (ST III, q.9, a.2)

I always overlay what others say to what Jesus said. Jesus was crystal clear on the subjects of purpose, accountability, actions and consequences IMHO. Logically, If eternal destruction is not in realm of reality, anything goes including atheism.

I thought the interview was well done. That is an area where he is controversial, but I was still happy with the interview in general.

I didn't hear that part, but probably because I tuned him out once I realize he was a watered down Catholic or however u wAnt to put it..

I don't listen to stuff that is not precisely true if I can help it.. unless I am listening to some "Christian" explain why he isn't Catholic, in which case, I know all about the Catholic Church so I can disabuse him of his false notions in a big hurry...

just being a little facetious. I actually would love to know more.. don't live near a Catholic book store @ this time but anyway

Is this what u are saying:

Jesus is God and so of course didn't have to LEARN to be God?

ok, i am confused again.. or still or whatever

Jesus said that no one knows the time of the End, not even Him (only the Father)

The condemnation deliberately alludes to that verse. The condemnation is against a particular misreading of it that flows from an erroneous Christology.

Think of it this way: God knows everything. How can God not even know that he is God? Those who say that Jesus was ignorant of his Divinity are implying that he is not omniscient.