Posted on 07/21/2015 3:54:04 AM PDT by JPX2011
ROME – This morning, Pope Francis formally announced Father Robert Barron's appointment as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Bishop-Elect Barron is the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries, host of the award-winning CATHOLICISM film series, and since 2012 has served as the Rector/President of the University of Saint Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary outside of Chicago, IL.
His website, WordOnFire.org, reaches millions of people each year. His regular YouTube videos have been viewed over 13 million times. Next to Pope Francis, he is the most-followed Catholic leader on social media.
(Excerpt) Read more at wordonfire.org ...
The difference is as subtle as the difference between White or Black vestments at a funeral.
Consider the message the above sends.
White is a celebratory color that the Church reserves for Her highest level feast: the Solemnity. Black, on the other hand, is a far more somber color that (used to be) reserved for funerals, All Souls Day, and Masses for the Dead.
Sending a message that we have a reasonable hope that all will find salvation draws us in the direction of the white vestment -- sending the message that the departed have "made it", rather than the message of the black vestment, "Tempus Fugit, Memento Mori"
If "we have a reasonable hope that all will find salvation," why bother saying a Rosary for the departed? Why bother with plenary indulgences for the dead? Why bother with offering Masses for the departed?
Why should we bother having a priest dragging himself out of bed in the middle of the night during a snowstorm to visit the deathbed of a loved one to offer extreme unction? After all, if we have a reasonable hope that all will find salvation, what does it matter that we take such an extreme action?
Fr. Barron is not the only one who advances the "reasonable hope that..." theory, whether in teaching or in practice. He just happens to be a television personality.
By the way, on your point regarding your students, I think (as a person who's taught teens before) that the biggest thing is the stress that we day by day, moment by moment face temptations that are placed in our paths to draw us away from the goal of spending eternity with Christ, experiencing the beatific vision for eternity. We have to discipline our minds to keep our eyes on the prize (Cf Phil 3:14). God has given the Church the tools needed to get us in the race (Baptism), the tools to strengthen us so that we can do it (Confirmation, Eucharist), the tools so that we can work to help each other and to where others can help us in that means (Marriage, Holy Orders) and to help patch us up (Penance, Extreme Unction).
But ultimately its on each one of us to make the decision to do go for the goal or to take the easy way out. Going for the goal takes discipline and hard work over our entire lives. It isn't easy. It may seem easier to take the easy way out. But the long-term consequences are more terrible than any of us could imagine (perhaps reading from Lucia Santos' memoirs dealing with when Our Lady showed the Fatima children a vision of the souls in hell would be appropriate for the students depending upon their ages). And there can be a lot of consequences that happen before then: violations of chastity can and do result in some really nasty diseases as does drug use. And so on. But more importantly, after a long period, you can almost literally see the souls of these people becoming more and more dead over time.
Then you could talk about habits (either establishing habits for virtue or habits for vice). You might want to refer to Dom Lorenzo Scupoli's Spiritual Combat as a reference to help you. I'm not suggesting it for the students, but for something you could use as a source for a method to teach establishing habits of virtue in the kids.
Hope the above helps.
Fr. Barron was the seminary instructor for my last priest. I have seen his entire series on Catholicism. I am impressed with Fr. Barron. Great news.
I don't either. An anecdote of Fr. Barron's is when Cardinal George went to the Vatican and Pope John Paul II asked him, "what are you doing to evangelize the culture?" Cardinal George did not have an answer for him. So he entrusted that ministry to Fr. Barron. As far as I can tell nobody else is doing that. There was Corapi but he ultimately failed. Before that was Bishop Sheen. Over 40 years ago.
With regard to the SSPX'ers, RadTrads, and the quasi-sedevacantists I can sympathize with their frustration. I try to exclusively attend a TLM Mass because of liturgical abuse and lukewarm homiletics in the Novus Ordo but that's not always possible. And I speak as someone brought up in the Post-VII tradition. But what good is maintaining those positions and attitudes if they do not edify?
Father Barron's ministry is to explain the Faith to those of us "illiterate Catholics" of which I count myself as one. His necessity, by implication, is a failure of the Church to teach the Faith. Which is an attribute lost in the PhD to PhD level of theological argumentation prevalent amongst the aforementioned groups which is not beneficial to me, personally. Assuming that I, as an ignorant Catholic is the target audience.
If the only thing the detractors of Fr. Barron have to point to in his voluminous body of work is his statement on Hell and Salvation (and to their credit I believe they are correct on the matter) which by their own admission is a matter of theological subtlety I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater which is their implication. Fr. Barron is fighting the good fight. I'm sure he will continue to do so in his new position.
Of course. :)
"...Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly..."
You could do far worse. But, frankly, EWTN is not the same as it was when Mother Angelica was firmly holding the reins. I'm not ultra-critical of it, but it just isn't the same. Mother Angelica would not hesitate to rip the bishops when they needed it. I just can't picture Father Mitch doing so (much less any of the other hosts).
In seriousness, though, what you should really do is to start reading the Catechism. Pay attention to the footnotes and look up what the footnotes say. The Vatican II documents that are referenced therein each have extensive footnoting as well. Try to look them up as well.
You can read many of the papal encyclicals (Papal Encyclicals dot net is an invaluable source). You can start with Leo XIII and move forward.
Are you going to instantly become an STL? No, but, at least, you've looked at the sources. And if you manage to take an hour a day to do so, you'd be surprised how quickly you can get through those important documents.
My wife is a DRE at one parish and a Confirmation director at another here in the LA diocese so I might have an occasion to meet Fr. Barron. Will keep your question in mind.
Cool!
I have read the Catechism, cover to cover. BUT! It’s been awhile. I need to read it again. I need to re-read a lot of stuff. It will be comforting.
I think it is one of the most important things that any of us can do. While we have the bishops and the priests who assist them to teach us; these days the ability for discernment is crucial. Especially when we have popes saying what seems to be the exact opposite of what their predecessors saying and when we have one bishop saying one thing and another saying the opposite.
The other advantage to us gaining a knowledge of doctrine is that when we hear a homily that makes us feel uncomfortable, we need to know if it makes us feel uncomfortable because the homily is wrong or if we are wrong.
Seriously, use the footnotes.
When JPII promulgated the Catechism through his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, he made the following statement:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!
While it is a valid and legitimate instrument for communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith, it is a statement of doctrine, it doesn't form or define that doctrine. It is a synopsis. To understand where that doctrine comes from, it's important to know the defining documents.
Quick example: if you look at the paragraphs in the Catechism about homosexuality, 2357-2359, it seems to give a ho-hum statement about homosexuality while rightly condemning homosexual conduct. But if you look at the document cited in footnote 141, Persona Humana, 8, you see a tremendous amplification that adds detail needed to really understand the heart of the Church on the matter. (And if you look at documents issued by the CDF both after the CCC was started and after it was issued, you have even more useful detail).
Bruce Jenner is brave, but Tim Tebow is a coward! Abortion is noble, pro-life is bigoted. Goes on and on. Some days I think my head will explode. But whereas we know better. A lot of people don't. They are killing us slowly. The day is coming. Just like the Nazi's took over Germany. The left is coming for us.
I pray that I am ready for it.
Agree.
THE CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTIONS of ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
-------------
From Article V: "He Descended into Hell."
...(2) We ought to conceive a fear of God and avoid all presumption. We have already seen that Christ suffered for sinners and descended into hell for them. However, He did not deliver all sinners, but only those who were free from mortal sin. He left there those who departed this life in mortal sin. Hence, anyone who descends into hell in mortal sin has no hope of deliverance; and he will remain in hell as long as the holy fathers remain in paradise, that is, for all eternity: "And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just, into life everlasting."[16]
(3) We ought to arouse in ourselves a mental anxiety. Since Christ descended into hell for our salvation, we ought in all care go down there in spirit by considering, for instance, its punishments as did that holy man, Ezechias: "I said: In the midst of my days I shall go to the gates of hell.[17] Indeed, he who during this life frequently descends into hell by thinking of it, will not easily fall into hell at death; for such meditation keeps one from sin, and draws one out of it. We see how men of this world guard themselves against wrongdoing because of the temporal punishment; but with how much more care ought they avoid the punishment of hell which far exceeds all else in its duration, its severity, and its varied nature! "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin."[18]...
You comparison is absurd. Fr. Barron is not preaching Arianism.
The article states that Fr. Barron is second among the Catholic hierarchy in social media following, behind only Pope Francis.
And Fr. Barron's works are far more conservative than most of the Catholic media you will see. My guess is he will be considerably more conservative that the bishop he will be replacing.
I have an aunt who left the Church because of worries about Hell and subsequently became a Mormon, largely because Mormons do not believe in Hell. I think the RadTrads are scaring people away from the faith.
Where is the, "Go and sin no more" and, "Let he is is without sin cast the first stone?" Instead it is condemnation and anger and constant judgement. Notice the difference between this and the radical traditional Catholics.
Is just finished watching the BBC TV version of Brideshead Revisited. It is interesting that God's grace did not scold Charles or Julia or Sebastian. Would that have been the best way to bring them back?
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that Mary was not immaculately conceived.
Isn't he teaching objective heresy by saying, "Hell, or Gehenna, the fire, all that, those are spatial and visual metaphors for the state of deep loneliness that comes from having rejected the Divine Love. That's how I put it. Hell is not so much a place...it's a condition, a state of being..."?
Credo: "He descended into hell".
If Hell is "the state of deep loneliness that comes from having rejected the Divine Love", wouldn't Christ "descending" into this state be a rejection of Himself? Father Barron's view of Hell can only be true if the Credo is not.
So obedience to the Deposit of Faith is distasteful? Take it up with Our Lord.
"For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." Mt 5:18
St. Thomas' understanding evolved over time.
"...There is some textual variance among manuscripts, but sixteen out of the best nineteen manuscripts read as above and show that St. Thomas did indeed end his life holding to the belief in the Immaculate Conception. Further, there are several other places in the later works of the Common Doctor where it seems that he affirms the dogma..."
It seems to line up with CCC 1058:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).
And all of these questions can be summed up with one: why be Catholic? But, then again, the Church in Rome doesn't teach one must be Catholic, does it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.