What about the elephant in the room?

Do you agree that there is corruption in the Church?

  • I agree that the there is much corruption in the Catholic Church but God will bring the Church back

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • I think you are exagerating the problems in the Church. The Church is fine.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • I agree that the there is much corruption in the Catholic Church and this disproves its claims

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Total voters
    13

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I understand valid concerns but this certainly does not seem to be the case here.

Yep. There are Bishops who indeed deserve a possible title of heretic. To place it on Bishop Barron is outlandish.
 
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
Yep. There are Bishops who indeed deserve a possible title of heretic. To place it on Bishop Barron is outlandish.

Which is why I formulated a possible criteria. The criteria of coherence. What's coherent for bishop Barron is Orthodoxy, not heterodoxy. Yes, he may say something wrong as the rest of us, but that's not part of what makes him as a theologian.

When Crd Cupich or Crd Wuerl says something orthodox for a change that's nice and all of that, but as they say "a swallow does not make a summer"...
On the other hand when some of them spread confusion and error then it's very coherent with their overall theological approach.

One may change ones overall status from a great scholar to heretic and vice versa, but it takes a long time to earn (and likewise lose) the trust of people.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,160
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,629.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Hmmm. I have no idea what the purpose is of slandering him and taking his words out of context.
The stock of bishops is way way down, particularly since the USCCB was going to address reform but cardinal Cupich shut them down some months back in favor of his proposal that Metropolitans (he is one) have the say in investigating lowly bishops. We tend to think all bishops are as bad as cardinal Cupich and ex-cardinal Mr. McCarrick and Bishop Bransfield. It's popular now to view them all as bottom dwellers, to look for the absolute worst in everything they say or do. Thus something said by bishop Barron can be yanked out of context and he can be made to be the worst heretic ever. The sharks are in a feeding frenzy. Which, of course, would not have happened had the bishops not chummed the waters by their own failures as a group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,635
977
United States
✟375,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's all very possible. Bishop Barron - I don't know - he seems like an extension of Francis in the US. He speaks in grey, and mixes good with bad.

I'm not sure it's all taking him out of context. I think he's like Francis, and you never know where he's really angling.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
We need to return to the traditional faith and traditional morality if we want this to get better

AMEN. One thing these scandals have done for me. I no longer just consider myself a conservative Catholic. I am now a Traditional Catholic! I go to Latin Mass. I listen to or read Church Miltant, Taylor Marshal, Peter Coffin, 1 Peter 5, New Oxford Review, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,635
977
United States
✟375,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
AMEN. One thing these scandals have done for me. I no longer just consider myself a conservative Catholic. I am now a Traditional Catholic! I go to Latin Mass. I listen to or read Church Miltant, Taylor Marshal, Peter Coffin, 1 Peter 5, New Oxford Review, etc.

All those guys are pretty good, call it like it is, sources. The average Novus Ordo parish and atmosphere is not equipped to take on the world - it has been transformed by the world.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I used to be on this forum years ago. I was Catholic then and even more of a Catholic now. But my Catholic faith had been tried. It has been tried by the sex scandals. I feel I was lied to. I was told that the sex scandals were a thing of the past. I was told that these scandals were no more than what happens in the general population. Sadly, I realized that was not true. It is far worse than I ever imagined it.

Our Protestant brothers and sisters, I am afraid, are more aware of these scandals than we are. We must confront this. We must be able to explain how the one true, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church could have so much corruption even from the very top.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am a faithful Catholic and I would encourage everyone here to remain a faithful Catholic. Our Lord never promised that His Church would always be triumphant. But He did promise that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against His Church. G.K. Chesterton said that the Church at times seems to be dead. But we worship a God who knows how to come back to the dead. That has happened throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Throughout its history there were times that Satan seemed victorious over the Church. But then God would raise up a saint(s) to guide the Church out of its corruption. We need to pray for God to raise up saints again.
Lately, the New York government has invoke RICO against the Church. The statute of limitations has been greatly expanded. Men can now sue the Church for the cover-ups on the sex abuse done on them when they were boys. Other cities will follow. Insurance companies are refusing to cover for these lawsuits, saying that the Church officials lied to them. The Church will spend millions of dollars suing the lawsuits ands I think the the Church will probably lose. We are talking of hundred of millions of dollars lost, money that you and I put in the offering every week. Thousands of churches will close (actually, that is starting to happen now). I will not be surprised that we will need to have Mass in someone's basement, as there will be no more Catholic Church buildings and there will only be a handful of faithful Catholics left.

In all this, I think I see God's hand in this. In the Bible, God called Gideon to raise an army. God whittled that army to just a handful of soldiers. But then they became more than victors. I think that is what is going to happen now. Many will leave the Catholic Church, especially the clergy. But the ones who remain will be great saints. And the Church will come back more glorious than ever.

Unfortunately, I doubt I will be here to see it. I am now 67 years old with many physical problems. Maybe none of us will be alive to see it. But I want to encourage all here to be faithful. Do not be discouraged. God has not left His Church. You may see this great miracle of the Church raised from its ruins.

Any thoughts?
I believe there has been and always will be corruption wherever human beings are involved. My former AOG church split due to the pastor's infidelity. And while impeccability would be a wonderful thing among leaders and teachers who should be held to a higher level of accountability, and among all of us for that matter, that is not reality; corruption is virtually guaranteed, in fact, in accord with the Church's own teachings on Original Sin and man's struggle with concupiscence. But none of this need affect its teachings:
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Matt 23:1-3

In any case the RCC teaches:
827 "Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:


The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And I believe this is all true, regardless of how one defines "church".
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
He was. Until he traded his knowledge for a red hat.

Er.. you do realize he doesn't have a red hat, and that "red hat" means one is a Cardinal?

In the video he discusses the opinion held of that scriptural passage by a woman who is an Episcopal Bishop, and how her interpretation differs from the traditional interpretation.
Note please his attitude in the presentation.

His "attitude"? What does that even mean? Did you even watch the video? This has to be one of the worst options with which to try to prove your point...

That's all very possible. Bishop Barron - I don't know - he seems like an extension of Francis in the US. He speaks in grey, and mixes good with bad.

I'm not sure it's all taking him out of context. I think he's like Francis, and you never know where he's really angling.

Bishop Barron is a complicated figure, but he's no Francis. If you ask him to clarify a point, he will, and it is very easy to agree with him if you read his words charitably. Even the most charitable reader has had a hard time swallowing Francis in his entirety. Barron talks to lots of atheists and agnostics, so he's not always quoting the catechism.

I stand strongly with Bishop Barron. I disagree with him at times, but if he is outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy then we are in trouble. ...lots of trouble.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This link has some info: Bp. Robert Barron's Spiritual Poison

A little digging, and all kinds of things come up. He's a very watered down, twist the faith, don't teach truth bishop.

Vorris... Whatever editor was forced to publish that article must have been deeply embarassed.

Here is another article from Church Militant: Bishop Robert Barron does not want to Reverse Gay "Marriage." The article is deeply critical of the Bishop, but it is coherent, orderly, and provides a plethora of citations and quotations. Basically everything that Vorris' sensationalism fails to do.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
I believe there has been and always will be corruption wherever human beings are involved. My former AOG church split due to the pastor's infidelity. And while impeccability would be a wonderful thing among leaders and teachers who should be held to a higher level of accountability, and among all of us for that matter, that is not reality; corruption is virtually guaranteed, in fact, in accord with the Church's own teachings on Original Sin and man's struggle with concupiscence.

I totally agree. I read a lot in Church history. There were other periods of corruption. The amazing thing is not that the Catholic Church was never corrupt. The amazing thing is that it has always come back!

There is a great book, Phoenix Among the Ashes, that goes through history and shows how the Church always comes back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Which is why I formulated a possible criteria. The criteria of coherence. What's coherent for bishop Barron is Orthodoxy, not heterodoxy. Yes, he may say something wrong as the rest of us, but that's not part of what makes him as a theologian.

I respectfully disagree. An orthodox Catholic can still say something heretical, it does not matter that he has been on EWTN. The Church has already condemned indifferentism and universalism. Barron said that "we have a reasonable hope that all go to heaven". There is a Youtube where he said this. He came right out and said that he disagreed with St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (he did not mention that they are Church doctors) and sided with the Protestant Karl Barth and Hans Ur Balthasar, which once wrote an afterword in a book on the wonders of Tarrot readings. There are many who have come out and criticized Barron. He still has not clarified his position to say that of course he knows that all will not go to heaven. He could have. But he chooses not to. If he is taken out of context, then why does he remain silent?

Arius was an orthodox theologian, except that he taught that the Son of God had a beginning. Nestorius was an orthodox theologian, except that he denied that Mary was the mother of God. But they were both heretics. Martin Luther was very orthodox by today's standard. He believed that the Bible was the Word of God. He had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. He believed in the resurrection of Christ. He believed that He will return to judge the living and the dead. But he was condemned a heretic because he taught that we are justified be faith alone. An otherwise orthodox theologian could still be a heretic.

Universalism is the mother of all heresies. If we all go to heaven then nothing else matters! You can believe any or all heresies, it does not really matter. You WILL go to heaven - no matter what. You can commit any mortal sin, it does not matter. You WILL go to heaven. So it then matters not what you say or what you do.

I read that Barron was taken out of context. But no one explains HOW he was taken out of context. If he was taken out of context then it should be easy to show!

We must be careful! The devil will use someone who says something wonderful 99% of the time and then slips in a heresy. And we may let it slide just because we like him. I thought Barron said some may wonderful things. But saying in any way that all will go to heaven is not just an error. It is a very dangerous error. It is a heresy. Souls who believe this are in danger. At least Martin Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone. The implication of Barron's teaching is that we do not even have to believe to be saved. Martin Luther once said that he could go to a harlot a hundred times a day and still go to heaven because he believes. A person who go hold's to Barron's teaching could say that he can go to a harlot a thousand times a day and still go to heaven - and not even believe!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
]
Er.. you do realize he doesn't have a red hat, and that "red hat" means one is a Cardinal?[/ QUOTE]

thanks for pointing that out. I have corrected it in my post.



His "attitude"? What does that even mean? Did you even watch the video? This has to be one of the worst options with which to try to prove your point...[/ QUOTE]

Yes, I did watch the video, thank you for asking.
What I noticed was the difference between a man who had been very knowledgeable previously when teaching Catholic theology, change into a man who on this occasion seemed to be on pins and needles, not confident, not relaxed, and not comfortable with the subject that he was talking about, and who seemed to be confused as to what stand he should take in the matter.

Bishop Barron is a complicated figure, but he's no Francis. If you ask him to clarify a point, he will, and it is very easy to agree with him if you read his words charitably. Even the most charitable reader has had a hard time swallowing Francis in his entirety. Barron talks to lots of atheists and agnostics, so he's not always quoting the catechism.

I stand strongly with Bishop Barron. I disagree with him at times, but if he is outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy then we are in trouble. ...lots of trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,635
977
United States
✟375,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I respectfully disagree. An orthodox Catholic can still say something heretical, it does not matter that he has been on EWTN. The Church has already condemned indifferentism and universalism. Barron said that "we have a reasonable hope that all go to heaven". There is a Youtube where he said this. He came right out and said that he disagreed with St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (he did not mention that they are Church doctors) and sided with the Protestant Karl Barth and Hans Ur Balthasar, which once wrote an afterword in a book on the wonders of Tarrot readings. There are many who have come out and criticized Barron. He still has not clarified his position to say that of course he knows that all will not go to heaven. He could have. But he chooses not to. If he is taken out of context, then why does he remain silent?

Arius was an orthodox theologian, except that he taught that the Son of God had a beginning. Nestorius was an orthodox theologian, except that he denied that Mary was the mother of God. But they were both heretics. Martin Luther was very orthodox by today's standard. He believed that the Bible was the Word of God. He had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. He believed in the resurrection of Christ. He believed that He will return to judge the living and the dead. But he was condemned a heretic because he taught that we are justified be faith alone. An otherwise orthodox theologian could still be a heretic.

Universalism is the mother of all heresies. If we all go to heaven then nothing else matters! You can believe any or all heresies, it does not really matter. You WILL go to heaven - no matter what. You can commit any mortal sin, it does not matter. You WILL go to heaven. So it then matters not what you say or what you do.

I read that Barron was taken out of context. But no one explains HOW he was taken out of context. If he was taken out of context then it should be easy to show!

We must be careful! The devil will use someone who says something wonderful 99% of the time and then slips in a heresy. And we may let it slide just because we like him. I thought Barron said some may wonderful things. But saying in any way that all will go to heaven is not just an error. It is a very dangerous error. It is a heresy. Souls who believe this are in danger. At least Martin Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone. The implication of Barron's teaching is that we do not even have to believe to be saved. Martin Luther once said that he could go to a harlot a hundred times a day and still go to heaven because he believes. A person who go hold's to Barron's teaching could say that he can go to a harlot a thousand times a day and still go to heaven - and not even believe!

Yes - that's it. Barron's universalism is pretty hard to "explain away". As a matter of fact it seems a good handful of Catholic apologists have recently quit trying to "explain away" all the things Francis has said, and now they say they have been "red pilled", and see it how it is.

Same thing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,183
Woods
✟4,582,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I do agree the apologists coming out with every statement the pope makes does become tiresome. There should be no need for it in the first place.
Yes - that's it. Barron's universalism is pretty hard to "explain away". As a matter of fact it seems a good handful of Catholic apologists have recently quit trying to "explain away" all the things Francis has said, and now they say they have been "red pilled", and see it how it is.

Same thing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
I respectfully disagree. An orthodox Catholic can still say something heretical, it does not matter that he has been on EWTN. The Church has already condemned indifferentism and universalism. Barron said that "we have a reasonable hope that all go to heaven". There is a Youtube where he said this. He came right out and said that he disagreed with St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (he did not mention that they are Church doctors) and sided with the Protestant Karl Barth and Hans Ur Balthasar, which once wrote an afterword in a book on the wonders of Tarrot readings. There are many who have come out and criticized Barron. He still has not clarified his position to say that of course he knows that all will not go to heaven. He could have. But he chooses not to. If he is taken out of context, then why does he remain silent?

Arius was an orthodox theologian, except that he taught that the Son of God had a beginning. Nestorius was an orthodox theologian, except that he denied that Mary was the mother of God. But they were both heretics. Martin Luther was very orthodox by today's standard. He believed that the Bible was the Word of God. He had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. He believed in the resurrection of Christ. He believed that He will return to judge the living and the dead. But he was condemned a heretic because he taught that we are justified be faith alone. An otherwise orthodox theologian could still be a heretic.

Universalism is the mother of all heresies. If we all go to heaven then nothing else matters! You can believe any or all heresies, it does not really matter. You WILL go to heaven - no matter what. You can commit any mortal sin, it does not matter. You WILL go to heaven. So it then matters not what you say or what you do.

I read that Barron was taken out of context. But no one explains HOW he was taken out of context. If he was taken out of context then it should be easy to show!

We must be careful! The devil will use someone who says something wonderful 99% of the time and then slips in a heresy. And we may let it slide just because we like him. I thought Barron said some may wonderful things. But saying in any way that all will go to heaven is not just an error. It is a very dangerous error. It is a heresy. Souls who believe this are in danger. At least Martin Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone. The implication of Barron's teaching is that we do not even have to believe to be saved. Martin Luther once said that he could go to a harlot a hundred times a day and still go to heaven because he believes. A person who go hold's to Barron's teaching could say that he can go to a harlot a thousand times a day and still go to heaven - and not even believe!

Thanks for your respectful tone, its rare at online forums but very much appreciated.

How did he put it? Did he imply that there are reasons to believe that Christ is a way and not the way or did he simply state that its allowed to hope and pray that everyone goes to heaven?
Theres a rather huge difference between the two.
If you simply wish that all people goes to heaven then its driven by love and a desire to see even enemies enter eternal bliss. That's rather saintly imo.

If it's a way of preaching that Christ is great and a safe choice then it is, as you say, indeed universialism and a grave heresy.
If he said it as a love driven hope for all mankind then it's no biggie as I see it.

Which one was it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes - that's it. Barron's universalism is pretty hard to "explain away".

I respectfully disagree. An orthodox Catholic can still say something heretical, it does not matter that he has been on EWTN. The Church has already condemned indifferentism and universalism. Barron said that "we have a reasonable hope that all go to heaven".

Let's be clear about a few things. First, Barron is alluding to von Balthasar's idea that it is permissible to hope that all will be saved. Balthasar was not a universalist, and the Church did not condemn his opinion, an opinion which is at odds with the long tradition of the Church. Barron is not a universalist either.

Personally I find Balthasar's opinion problematic, and it is a point on which I think Barron is incautious. Neither do I agree with Barron on that point.

Still, the opinion has not been condemned as heresy and therefore Barron is no heretic. Indeed, I think he is very far from a heretic.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Let's be clear about a few things. First, Barron is alluding to von Balthasar's idea that it is permissible to hope that all will be saved. Balthasar was not a universalist, and the Church did not condemn his opinion, an opinion which is at odds with the long tradition of the Church. Barron is not a universalist either.

The Church has not condemn Fr. James Martin, either. And he said that homosexuality is a gift from God. Nancy Pelosi also said that the marriage between two men or two women is consistent with Catholic teaching and she was not condemned as a heretic. After Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, many American bishops and priests signed the Land of Lakes statement saying that they were against the papal document. No one was excommunicated or declared a heretic. Ever since Vatican II the Church has been very shy against excommunicating anyone or condemning anyone for heresy. Maybe it is because they are wary of causing a schism like when the Church excommunicated Martin Luther. Or maybe they are afraid how it looks on the media, as if the Church is bringing back the Inquisition. So since then, the popes have been trying to teach the truth without officially condemning anyone specifically for not believing the truth.

But no matter what, you cannot say that just because Barron has not been condemned by the Church that he is free of the charge of heresy - unless you want to also say that Pelosi is not a heretic.

Personally I find Balthasar's opinion problematic, and it is a point on which I think Barron is incautious. Neither do I agree with Barron on that point.

Still, the opinion has not been condemned as heresy and therefore Barron is no heretic. Indeed, I think he is very far from a heretic.

It is problematic because it flirts with what has already been declared as heresy. Barron did NOT just say that it is permissable to hope that all are saved. He said that "we have a reasonable hope" that all are saved. I have a reasonable hope that there is life after death because our Lord said so. I have a reasonable hope that I will go to heaven providing that I have no unconfessed mortal sin that I am aware of, because this is what the Church teaches. But since the Church has never taught that everyone will go to heaven, I have no rationale basis to assert that there is a reasonable hope for this.

Dictionary.com defines "heretic" as "a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church." Our Church teaches that souls will go to hell. Barron says that there is a reasonable hope that all will go to heaven. This is his own personal opinion that goes contrary to what our Church has always taught.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Church has not condemn Fr. James Martin, either. And he said that homosexuality is a gift from God. Nancy Pelosi also said that the marriage between two men or two women is consistent with Catholic teaching and she was not condemned as a heretic.

To be quick, I don't think you can compare James Martin or Nancy Pelosi to Hans Urs von Balthasar.

Further, the Church still condemns heresies, She is just less comfortable excommunicating individuals on the charge of heresy (though She will and has revoked teaching licenses of individuals who teach problematic doctrines). Balthasar has been dead for 30 years, wrote plenty on the topic, knew the dangers, and the doctrine was still never condemned. Maybe his doctrine is heretical, but the Church has not made such a judgment, and therefore it is factually incorrect to call Balthasar or Barron a heretic--material or formal. The Church determines doctrine, not private individuals.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm just seeing this thread/poll for the first time. I don't think I can answer the poll because I don't think quantifying the corruption in those terms is accurate, I don't think there is "much" of it. I think yes there is corruption, but I think the focus on it by all sides of the media distorts the size of it.

Is it a massive issue? Absolutely, and I hope all of it's eradicated like pests on crops. But I think we need to refocus a little bit because while things look kind of grim at the upper echelons of the Church, on the other side of things there are parts of the Church that are getting revived and thriving by younger generations (the Latin Mass is becoming increasingly available around the country and the world, ancient and longstanding practices of the Church are being restored by young priests and laity).

A time will come when the corruption is well and truly purged from the Vatican, from the USCCB, from the CCCB, and from everywhere else it currently has a foothold in the world. Whether that purging comes at the hands of the next generation of faithful Catholics, or the hands of Christ himself, I have no idea. But it'll come.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks for your respectful tone, its rare at online forums but very much appreciated.

Thanks. I was on this forum a few years and I quit because I was developing a disrespectful attitude to some. If that happens again I will quit for good.

The real test will be when I talk to those outside the Faith.

If you simply wish that all people goes to heaven then its driven by love and a desire to see even enemies enter eternal bliss. That's rather saintly imo.

If it's a way of preaching that Christ is great and a safe choice then it is, as you say, indeed universialism and a grave heresy.
If he said it as a love driven hope for all mankind then it's no biggie as I see it.

Which one was it?

It is definitely not the former.

Here is his own words:


At first, he seems to be orthodox. But he then says things that muddy the waters. He says there is a possibility that there is a hell, but we have a reasonable hope that all are saved.

Here is a rebuttal:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0