tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post8648187143127888197..comments2023-10-02T01:11:04.783-07:00Comments on Mahound's <br>Paradise: People Are Leaving the Church Because of YOU, Bishop BarronOakes Spaldinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-36511447650449643222019-09-01T15:13:07.550-07:002019-09-01T15:13:07.550-07:00I have a dear older friend who is a (piously) devo...I have a dear older friend who is a (piously) devout Catholic interested in my re-conversion to the Catholic faith despite my animosity and revulsion for Catholicism for more than fifty years.("Tennessee Go-Fasters & Papal Disasters" on Blurb.com). At 74, I have tasted the duplicity and witnessed the abysmal corruption of the wealthy Catholic Church remaining embittered and outraged and cynical. Obviously this has not been good for my mental and/or spiritual health. The Catholic Church's openly sexual and monetary corruption with seeming infallible Papal protections against legal reprisals should be condemned and shuttered worldwide for the public safety. I was earnestly referred to Bishop Barron's recent utube "sermons" which purport to encourage angry Catholics not to abandon their wavering "faith" despite their church ("the Holy See") sputtering with visible moral pollution from the unprecedented wealth of the Vatican celibates to the empty benches of the local diocese with the occasional pedophile priest. Bishop Barron admits to an astonishing 37 percent drop-off of Catholic believers in the worldwide Catholic population and further testifies the Catholic Church is possessed of the Devil. Well, that's easy to see! But fear not! Barron says...Stay for the Holy Eucharist! That's his purposeful Catholicism in a nutshell. And continue to pray.....and buy his videos and send them to all of your Catholics friends who have left or are contemplating their angry exits...THIS, less than inspiration and aspiration from a man of the soiled cloth. But God bless him anyway. He is doing his moral best.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038513888492854869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-53939908327234995422016-09-26T06:25:23.111-07:002016-09-26T06:25:23.111-07:00I think you MIGHT enjoy my blog Assorted Retorts:
...I think you MIGHT enjoy my blog Assorted Retorts:<br /><br />1) "I was listening to Robert Barron, a man who has more goodwill than knowledge and wisdom in my opinion. I came across some anti-Catholic hate speech."<br /><br />See this post: <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/06/on-child-abuse-and-enemies-of.html" rel="nofollow">... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)</a><br /><br />2) "Biblical History was already in everyone's hands. Historia Scholastica was translted into vernacs As said, Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor was translated into several vernaculars and this with the full blessing of the Church. No Flemish Inquisition was burning the Rijmbijbel, which was a Flemish translation of Historia Scholastica. And obviously Petrus Comestor with his Flemish translator (and his colleagues for other vernaculars) took Genesis 1-11 as very literal history."<br /><br />I felt I had to say above under "on Protestantism and Authority", by, guess who, and it led to the dialogue on this post: <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/10/against-two-protestants-on.html" rel="nofollow">... against Two Protestants on Protestantism, Specifically Baptism and Waldensians, and on Inquisition</a><br /><br />3) This one is directly related to what RB himself said: <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2016/03/against-false-sophistication-of-robber.html" rel="nofollow">... against false sophistication of the Robber Baron of Theology</a><br /><br />4) So is this one, and to an already mentioned video: <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/04/on-authority-protestantism-genesis.html" rel="nofollow">... on Authority, Protestantism, Genesis (answering Robert Barron)</a><br /><br />5) And unlike that man, I do believe Hell and its fire exist: <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/03/on-hell-fire-yes-it-exists.html" rel="nofollow">... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists)</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-4581024830254014232016-09-10T21:57:33.607-07:002016-09-10T21:57:33.607-07:00One more thing:
Throughout this whole conversatio...One more thing:<br /><br />Throughout this whole conversation, one thing is telling. Nobody -- neither Barron nor his critics -- have mentioned the Gospel. Do you know why Catholic growth is minus-5, given the Pew stats? It's because the Catholic Church has effectively stopped teaching the Gospel. I sincerely doubt most Catholic bishops, let alone priests or laity, knows what the Gospel is (beyond some vague concept of "good news"). I doubt if any of the above-mentioned parties knows what the significance of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection is. I'm deadly serious about this.<br /><br />Aquinas was brilliant but just reading him will not lead anybody to faith in Jesus as Messiah. Faith is not merely an intellectual proposition, as all-too-many intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals like Barron) would like to suggest. We are to love God with our <i>whole mind, heart and soul.</i> That describes passionate commitment and fundamental trust in God's character and integrity. It means taking Jesus' claims seriously, Barron or no Barron. It means going after God's own heart and not just relying on denominational or theological group identity. It means something that the Barrons of this world cannot in any way comprehend.<br /><br />BTW, have you noticed that the Catholic Church is losing adherent <b><i>despite</i></b> the growth of professional apologetics ministries??? The plot thickens....Joseph D'Hippolitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15571554907399914529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-6510633671225378682016-09-10T21:35:40.069-07:002016-09-10T21:35:40.069-07:00"Bishop Barron wants to be an intellectual.
..."Bishop Barron wants to be an intellectual.<br /><br />"Bishop Barron is not an intellectual."<br /><br />B--I--N...<br /><br />"He's a muddle-headed suck-up who can almost always be counted on to take his claims from the current Zeitgeist and twist them (in an insult to the Zeitgeist) into propositions that wouldn't convince a twelve-year old."<br /><br />G---O<br /><br />DING, DING, DING, DING !!!!Joseph D'Hippolitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15571554907399914529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-77327510682372944472016-09-06T15:39:10.934-07:002016-09-06T15:39:10.934-07:00Fr. Borron needs to read this:http://www.olrl.org/...Fr. Borron needs to read this:http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml<br />And listen to this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5HcRichard Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244053940987752817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-55106417239293522762016-09-05T10:05:00.118-07:002016-09-05T10:05:00.118-07:00I just wrote a (much shorter) piece on Barron and ...I just wrote a (much shorter) piece on Barron and Hell that I might public tomorrow. The thrust is that whether or not his view is within the realm of orthodoxy, it's not even internally coherent.<br /><br />I watched the main video again and became even more annoyed (if that's possible), partly because I think he blatantly mischaracterizes the intellectual history, implying that there was always this sort of even back and forth in the Church between the standard position and universalism. But that's really not true.<br /><br />Here's the (Protestant) historian of Christianity, Richard Bauckham:<br /><br />"The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokatastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form, this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality'). Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment. Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians. Among the less conservative, universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument."<br /><br />I think Bauckham himself is a bit misleading on the post 1800 history. Among other things the Catholic Church itself has obviously never officially embraced universalism (even though some of its theologians have). But I guess he's talking more about individual well-known Christian theologians. <br /><br />Thanks for your comment on the Olympics pieces. They were fun to write.Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-89207813339968646972016-09-05T09:52:21.176-07:002016-09-05T09:52:21.176-07:00Good to point out, but as I understand it, the cla...Good to point out, but as I understand it, the claim about Reagan is in dispute. Do you have a definitive source?<br /><br />Most people call JFK the first and only Catholic president, but I didn't want to formulate it that way as he was such a bad Catholic in so many ways.<br /><br />That said, he made some wonderful and inspiring speeches, including the one I was referring to.Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-37704052737172723482016-09-05T09:40:33.054-07:002016-09-05T09:40:33.054-07:00I agree with you. I'm not a theologian, but I ...I agree with you. I'm not a theologian, but I don't see how Von Balthasar can be squared with earlier magisterial teaching. I was trying to give Baron's rationale for defending Von Balthasar, but I think it falls short. Baron claimed on a podcast that Von Balthasar begins with Aquinas in his thinking. However, I provided two quotes from the Summa (see my earlier reply) that shows clearly that Aquinas can't be squared with Von Balthasar on his teaching on hell. The Augustinian approach to predestination and the slightly modified Augustinian approach by Aquinas are nowhere near Von Balthasar's novel invention. DanJay1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/06923142801518377566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-67838611472773523912016-09-05T09:21:25.850-07:002016-09-05T09:21:25.850-07:00"...you have to at least admit that the Von B..."...you have to at least admit that the Von Balthasar theory is possible and within the realm of orthodoxy."<br /><br />Which is actually something I am loathe to do.<br /><br />No, Balthsar's works on this question have not been formally anathematized (but then again, who gets anathematized at all these days?). But I find it impossible to square with existing magisterial teachings on hell and salvation. <br /><br />None of which justifies the bizarre attack Barron launched on Ralph Martin, as Msgr Pope did well to point out. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-37958858079474713182016-09-04T12:29:53.657-07:002016-09-04T12:29:53.657-07:00Folks might find the following interesting:
http:/...Folks might find the following interesting:<br />http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-nostalgia-apologetics-and-apostasy.html<br /><br />The money quote, in my opinion: "Cradle Catholics are leaving because they are too smart not to perceive the irrelevance of what they see and hear from their prelates every week. Converts leave for these and many other reasons, not the least of which is the budding suspicion that they have been seriously deceived by the apologists who argued them into the Church."Hrodgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11052168727776803292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-22536349311910122952016-09-04T08:09:33.184-07:002016-09-04T08:09:33.184-07:00re: "the only baptized Catholic American pres...re: "the only baptized Catholic American president" - Ronald Reagan was baptized Catholic as an infant but was not raised in the Faith and there is a rumor that Washington was baptized a Catholic on his deathbed. I know, I'm being pedantic. Dr. Bombayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09479847178581885093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-81287040824853288162016-09-04T07:25:30.140-07:002016-09-04T07:25:30.140-07:00I would like to give a thumbs up to the Bear.I would like to give a thumbs up to the Bear.orate fratmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618744702928236293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-24635786028376785732016-09-04T04:22:09.465-07:002016-09-04T04:22:09.465-07:00I think most old recordings replay at a higher pit...I think most old recordings replay at a higher pitch for some reason.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00686466300503725349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-4018341930049058052016-09-04T00:42:31.135-07:002016-09-04T00:42:31.135-07:00RE: The Bible cf. USCCB: God, the author of Sacred...RE: The Bible cf. USCCB: God, the author of Sacred Scripture borrowed the plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) from creation-flood stories in Mesopotamian literature - http://wp.me/p2Na5H-MOthewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-67033724301166435782016-09-03T17:28:33.762-07:002016-09-03T17:28:33.762-07:00You're right, Kathleen. I'll take it as a...You're right, Kathleen. I'll take it as a good sign that we have another year with him at home. I'm not as bothered as his mother. It can be good for him to stare out into the abyss for awhile.<br /><br />Oakes - stay the course, keep the faith, love your wife. You'll find all you need.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-11322371461533585072016-09-03T17:17:55.324-07:002016-09-03T17:17:55.324-07:00That's fair. Perhaps I did give too positive o...That's fair. Perhaps I did give too positive of spin, but even with the positive spin on his outlook on hell and Von Balthasar, it still falls short as I mentioned. I just wanted to be fair on his actual position, and I may have given him too much of the benefit of the doubt. <br /><br />I forgot about the comparison to Humanae Vitae with Ralph Martin. Here was my understanding and I'm more than happy to be corrected if I get this wrong. I don't believe he was saying that you must ascribe to the Von Balthasar theory, but that you have to at least admit that the Von Balthasar theory is possible and within the realm of orthodoxy. In other words, you are well within your right to believe the traditional doctrine on hell like Ralph Martin, but you have to at least accept the Von Balthasar position as an orthodox possibility. This is different than denying or condemning the traditional doctrine of hell. As I pointed out above though, I don't think the Von Balthasar position is within the realm of orthodoxy anyway. So in my attempt to make Baron look not as bad, we still end up at the same ultimate conclusion that he got this one wrong. So it's kind of a pointless defense on my part and not worth the argument. <br /><br />On a random side note, I enjoyed the refreshing posts on the Olympics! DanJay1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/06923142801518377566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-9533903182325481842016-09-03T17:17:15.044-07:002016-09-03T17:17:15.044-07:00Yes, that Pell vs. Dawkins debate was depressing. ...Yes, that Pell vs. Dawkins debate was depressing. I think the New Atheists are quite effective "evangelists" for their cause - much more than Barron, although I know many might disagree. And I think many of their arguments are good ones given their premises. The problem to me is that the premises are too easily conceded. It's sad when a Dawkins seems to understand the doctrine of Original Sin better than a Cardinal.<br /><br />I wasn't raised as a Catholic so I might be asking you for "apologetics" tips in a few years. My oldest kids just turned 5, and I just have no idea what they'll face when they are teenagers. With all the challenges that Catholic parents will always have, I just wish we at least had the Church on our side. Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-88244594735051853812016-09-03T17:16:28.585-07:002016-09-03T17:16:28.585-07:00Rebellion goes with the territory, as I'm sure...Rebellion goes with the territory, as I'm sure you know. Give him time and a good example. He'll likely come around to the truth. Kathleen1031https://www.blogger.com/profile/10201084623185206141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-46964734742341912752016-09-03T17:08:42.187-07:002016-09-03T17:08:42.187-07:00True. I am not a towering Catholic intellect nor p...True. I am not a towering Catholic intellect nor philosopher, nor skilled apologist, but I know one when I hear one. Fulton J. Sheen comes to mind. Oh, for him to be here for a day! I believe he would lay these men out in lavender, pun not intended, but darn, how appropriate!<br />Kathleen1031https://www.blogger.com/profile/10201084623185206141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-50871011590661616372016-09-03T16:38:41.946-07:002016-09-03T16:38:41.946-07:00You are of course right that one has an obligation...You are of course right that one has an obligation to treat the arguments of one's opponents (perhaps especially one's opponents) fairly. The tone of my way-too-long piece varies somewhat, and points 1-5 contain hyperbole that wouldn't fly in an academic paper. (See point 4 on Gandhi).<br /><br />But in turn, Barron claims to be doing apologetics work, not academic argument. So I think it's the effect of his remarks, not what they may technically say or not say that really matters.<br /><br />But that said, and after rereading and reviewing what Barron has said about hell, I do not think I was unfair. And with respect, if I may say it, I think you are way too indulgent here with his arguments. Or rather, what you charitably out forward is certainly a more acceptable spin on them but not what he actually wrote or said.<br /><br />For his part, Barron has been extremely unfair in reacting to his opponents. At one point he equated a defense of the traditional position on hell (taken recently by Ralph Martin) to dissent on Humanae Vitae. Quite honestly, I think this is so cunningly and slanderously dishonest as to verge on the demonic. See: <br /><br />http://blog.adw.org/2012/12/hurts-and-hopes-regarding-the-recent-debates-on-hell/<br /><br />But I appreciate your comments. This post was so damn long that it may be enough, but perhaps a future short analysis on Barron and hell is in order, with fewer jokes or whatever.Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-2495983126103251812016-09-03T16:33:22.662-07:002016-09-03T16:33:22.662-07:00This article hits home. (It's all good analys...This article hits home. (It's all good analysis, BTW.) My 17-yr-old son got seized upon by atheistic robbers such as Dawkins and Hitchens. It's my fault for letting him have Youtube at 16. Or it's my fault for raising him in a strict Traditional school with the Latin Mass. In any case, we aren't short on apologetic material he could read or short of faithful and knowledgeable Catholics he could consult. But he's not interested in getting answers.<br /><br />With him, it's that science has the truth and religious people are hypocrites, warmongers, etc. Of course, we can all see through it, but he can't and won't. When presented with contradictions, such as how commie atheists murdered more in a century than in all of human history, he just says he's a different type of atheist. The real dilemma for him is that he hasn't shed the grace to know right from wrong. It can't sit well with him that Dawkins advocates murdering defective kids. He also admitted that Mother Teresa did good works, contrary to Hitchens. So what's the problem? Bad information, but more, weakness of will.<br /><br />Apologetics is in bad shape since the Church abandoned St. Thomas and apostatized at Vatican II. The bishops and popes are evolutionists, and can't actually answer a Dawkins. My son saw the "debate" with Pell and Dawkins. When the latter brought up Original Sin and rubbed Pell's face in it, it was all over. That's a shame because of all people, a Cardinal should be able to deftly rake Dawkins over the coals and expose what a blowhard he is. Hence, there's the much bigger problem of purging the hierarchy of Teilhardians, such as Ratzinger and Pope Francis, but that will take decades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-39845437651348529582016-09-03T13:25:15.217-07:002016-09-03T13:25:15.217-07:00I saw that! The first time I've ever heard GK...I saw that! The first time I've ever heard GKC's voice. It is a little higher than I expected, and the accent is more educated than any voice you'll hear on British airwaves today. I was struck by how quickly and fluidly he spoke - no awkward stumbling or slowness.Dr. Mabusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04190706197508265132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-85030162299335150742016-09-03T12:52:50.192-07:002016-09-03T12:52:50.192-07:00Garrigou-Lagrange's The Principles of Catholic...Garrigou-Lagrange's <i>The Principles of Catholic Apologetics</i> ought to be required reading once again. Of curse, that would require seminaries and STD programs that still rigorously engaged Aquinas in the first place.<br /><br />Bp. Barron is always careful to clarify that Balthasar only adverted to a "hope," not an assurance, or even a likelihood, that all men are saved. But I also think that in the tone of his apologetics discourse on salvation, "likelihood" seems often implied, and he rarely seems to insert sobering caution on this point. In any event, as you say, even on its most restrained reading, Balthasar is extremely difficult if not impossible to square with Church doctrine (let alone the overwhelming witness of the doctors and Fathers of the Church, just as he is on Christ's descent into hell on Holy Saturday, as Lyra Pitstick has demonstrated so powerfully. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-42276070195326890872016-09-03T12:45:23.797-07:002016-09-03T12:45:23.797-07:00That goes back to a Lindberg piece in National Rev...That goes back to a Lindberg piece in <i>National Review</i> back in 1989 (I think) picking apart Moyers' PBS programs, like <i>The Power of Myth</i> and <i>A World of Ideas</i>.<br /><br />Of course, public intellectuals, as such a phenomenon exists, quite often are just "middlebrow" intellectuals. It becomes a problem when they're no longer aware of it, and attempt to claim that they are something more. And it is sobering to appreciate the decline when you contrast what passes for Catholic public intellectuals attempting apologetics today with what was on tap in the first half of the 20th century, let alone any time before it. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1373152433565591514.post-42402231399252141962016-09-03T12:38:32.433-07:002016-09-03T12:38:32.433-07:00I'm still reading through this post. Another g...I'm still reading through this post. Another great point:<br /><br /><i>But a curious atheist just might ask this question: if the Church said X a hundred years ago, but now it says (you claim) Not X, on what grounds should it command my assent now?</i><br /><br />I often come back to this point. It usually comes up in the context of progressive claims that the Church *has* changed its teaching on some key points, so we shouldn't get bent out of shape when they're trying to change - er, "develop" - another one. Most commonly they advert to teachings on slavery, usury, religious freedom, heliocentrism, etc. (John Noonan being one of the most prominent advocates). The correct response, of course, is that the Church has <i>not</i> changed formal doctrine on any of these questions - I won't belabor that point.<br /><br />But the outsider's response is going to be: "Look, if a doctrine has changed, the Church was either wrong THEN, or it is wrong NOW. Which is it? And whatever the answer is, why should I accept <i>any</i> of its claims if it has gotten it wrong on basic questions like these?" <br /><br />At which point, if the conversation continues at all, you will get some sort of Rahnerian shuffle about contingent structures and experiences. But that's not exactly compelling to the outsider, either. Because it looks like just what it is: an intellectual dodge. Which is, unfortunately, what too often seem sto characterize the posture of Bishop Barron, as I think you rightly point out here.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.com