Replies

Why do you defend St. Thomas Aquinas, who by your account seemed to deny the Immaculate Conception?

Why not extend the same charity to Fr. Barron.

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Church. It was not proclaimed ex cathedra at the time of Aquinas, but still it was held to be true by almost all devout Catholics.

The dogma that we can not hope that all men are saved does not exist. We must believe that Hell exists, that the Devil and the fallen angels are in Hell, and that anyone damned to Hell will stay there for all of eternity. But there is no dogma that a human being is or will be damned to Hell. It might be implied by Christ’s words to Judas, but it is not dogma.

So it seems you should be much harder on Aquinas than on Fr. Barron. Aquinas disagreed with a dogma of the Church, which is far worse than what Fr. Barron did, even if you are right about everything else.

Why do you defend St. Thomas Aquinas, who by your account seemed to deny the Immaculate Conception?

Really? That's not how I read it.

Did St. Thomas deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

...At least this much is certain, St. Thomas ended his life leaning much closer to a belief in the Immaculate Conception and was convinced that our Lady received a singular grace in being free from all sin, both actual and even original sin. Therefore, it is ridiculous and quite unfair (not to mention uncharitable) for people to claim that St. Thomas denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception."

Why not extend the same charity to Fr. Barron.

Since when is it "charitable" to silently acquiesce to public attacks on Tradition by a media priest? In Fr. Barron's video on hell, he tosses the theology of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (both Doctors of the Church) out the window and then establishes a false dialectic between Origen (the flip-floppingest Church Father) and Karl Barth (not even a Catholic) in order to be able to make the claim that Balthasar "has it pretty much right". Fr. Barron would have us believe that Adam is a poetic figure, and that hell is a spatial/visual metaphor, yet he treats an obvious use of poetic license ("brother sun", "sister moon") as a factual statement, going so far as to ridiculously classify us as "ontological siblings" of inanimate objects. Even a five year old wouldn't buy into that tortured characterization.

Fr. Barron's teachings are not in line with Catholic Tradition. Charity demands that priests not be given a free pass to mislead the faithful by promoting their own personal opinions as fact.