• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

What about the elephant in the room?

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by packermann, Aug 19, 2019.

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

    9 vote(s)
    69.2%
  2. I think you are exagerating the problems in the Church. The Church is fine.

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. I agree that the there is much corruption in the Catholic Church and this disproves its claims

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  1. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,511
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Yep. There are Bishops who indeed deserve a possible title of heretic. To place it on Bishop Barron is outlandish.
     
  2. Stabat Mater

    Stabat Mater Jesus Christ conquers! Supporter

    +6,634
    Holy See (vatican City State)
    Traditional. Cath.
    Single
    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.
     
  3. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,095
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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.
     
  4. Markie Boy

    Markie Boy Looking East, Moving Slow Supporter

    847
    +520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  5. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    963
    +142
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  6. Markie Boy

    Markie Boy Looking East, Moving Slow Supporter

    847
    +520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  7. fhansen

    fhansen Oldbie

    +1,217
    Catholic
    Married
    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".
     
  8. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Er.. you do realize he doesn't have a red hat, and that "red hat" means one is a Cardinal?

    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...

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  10. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    963
    +142
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  11. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    963
    +142
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    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: Aug 25, 2019
  12. pdudgeon

    pdudgeon Traditional Catholic

    +9,483
    United States
    Catholic
    Widowed
    US-Republican
    ]
     
  13. Markie Boy

    Markie Boy Looking East, Moving Slow Supporter

    847
    +520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  14. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +23,828
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  15. Stabat Mater

    Stabat Mater Jesus Christ conquers! Supporter

    +6,634
    Holy See (vatican City State)
    Traditional. Cath.
    Single
    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?
     
  16. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  17. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    963
    +142
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    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.

    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: Aug 25, 2019
  18. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  19. Fenwick

    Fenwick Faithful then, faithful now!

    +6,767
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  20. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    963
    +142
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    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.

    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: Aug 25, 2019
Loading...