There’s no need to get all worked up over this “gay marriage” thing. Fr. Robert Barron has it all figured out: “We’ve been here before.”
According to Fr. Barron, writing in an article recently published on the Word on Fire blog, Roman Pontiffs like Pius VI, Pius VII, and Gregory VII all had their run-ins with rogue States and assorted godless rulers.
Indeed, he reminds us, the Catholic Church has been opposed in some form or fashion in every age, and hey, we’re still kicking!
Fr. Barron does concede, however, that this historical perspective may be lost on those of us living in the United States for good reason:
One reason that this [recent Supreme Court ruling] has been rather shocking to American Catholics is that we have had, at least for the last century or so, a fairly benign relationship with the environing culture. Until around 1970, there was, throughout the society and across religious boundaries, a broad moral consensus in our country, especially in regard to sexual and family matters. This is one reason why, in the 1950’s, Archbishop Fulton Sheen could find such a wide and appreciative audience among Protestants and Jews, even as he laid out fundamentally Catholic perspectives on morality. But now that consensus has largely been shattered, and the Church finds itself opposed…
Please allow me to shift the focus back to where it belongs in this matter; namely, away from the culture at large and back on Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Church.
It is true, as Fr. Barron suggests, that the moral fiber of America’s citizens prior to the 196o’s was much stronger than it is today.
So what changed?
As Fr. Barron sees it, the “environing culture” changed, and it did so in such way as to render what was once the “broad moral consensus in regard to sexual and family matters,” little more than a minority opinion.
All of this is true enough, but the question that Fr. Barron and other neo-conservative Catholic commentators don’t dare to ask is this; what exactly facilitated that change?
The answer, of course, is Vatican Council II, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Though they may not have the self-awareness to articulate it in such terms, the view that is held by the Fr. Barrons of the world is such that the culture is considered the protagonist that autonomously determines the Church’s lot in any given age.
Fr. Barron makes this rather clear when he says, “We [Catholics] have had, at least for the last century or so, a fairly benign relationship with the environing culture … but now that consensus has largely been shattered, and the Church finds itself opposed.”
It appears obvious that Fr. Barron is resigned to the notion that the culture will do what the culture will do, and as the ebb and flow of history would have it, the culture in which we currently live (i.e., the preponderance of “We the People”) has chosen to abandon previously accepted moral principles.
This is a fundamentally American mindset wherein it is simply a given that the majority rules.
In this scenario, the Church is then left with no other choice than to carry on in the face of the culture’s whims; presumably in the hope that it will one day, for God only knows what reason, choose to re-embrace, just as inexplicably, the moral precepts that it currently holds in contempt.
This is what leads Fr. Barron to conclude his article saying:
So what do we do? We continue to put forth our point of view winsomely, invitingly, and non-violently, loving our opponents and reaching out to those with whom we disagree. As St. John Paul II said, the Church always proposes, never imposes. And we take a deep breath, preparing for what could be some aggression from the secular society, but we take courage from a great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. The Church has faced this sort of thing before—and we’re still standing.
While countless well-meaning victims of the post-conciliar crisis are busily applauding Fr. Barron’s article as a moment of much needed perspective; for those of us who, by the grace of God alone, still possess sensus Catholicus, the deficiencies contained in Fr. Barron’s conclusions are rather obvious.
First of all, the Church was not established to put forth “points of view,” winsomely or otherwise; rather, she was commissioned by Our Lord, He to whom “all authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given,” to baptize the nations, teaching them everything whatsoever that He commanded.
In other words, the Church was given the Divine Commission to go forth, on the authority of the King, to Christianize every culture in every nation of the world.
Secondly, the saying attributed to Pope John Paul II above is not even worthy of being called a half-truth; it is more appropriately considered an outright falsehood.
While it is true that the Church does not impose in the sense of forcing individuals to believe that which must be freely accepted in faith, she most certainly does insist on the truths that have been entrusted to her.
As such, it simply isn’t the case that the Church “always proposes,” any more than a responsible parent would simply “propose” to their teen aged child that heroine is dangerous.
It is precisely because our churchmen of the last fifty-plus years have abandoned their mission to baptize and to teach the nations with authority; choosing instead to present Catholic doctrine as if it is little more than an “invitation” worthy of consideration, that the “environing culture” has managed to change so drastically in so short a time.
Prior to the Council, the popes, and the bishops in union with him, did not shy away from making it known that the immutable truths that come to mankind through the Holy Catholic Church are truly nothing less than the Royal Commandments of Christ the King; He who reigns over individuals, societies and States, Catholic or otherwise.
It was in this environment, even in a nation the affairs of which are ordered on a Constitution that extends no more rights to Jesus Christ than to the Dalai Lama, that “Archbishop Fulton Sheen could find such a wide and appreciative audience” even among non-Christians.
Back then, it was widely known by Catholics and non-Catholics alike that the pluralistic U.S. Constitutional model of religious freedom just described is irreconcilable with the Church’s understanding of her mission and the rights of her Divine Founder; her steady confidence in her singular identity, even in the face of every threat, made it plain.
The current environment, by contrast, is one in which our very own churchmen, under the influence of Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, wouldn’t dare to assert any special rights or privileges as belonging exclusively to Jesus Christ, much less His Holy Catholic Church.
For example, Bishop William E. Lori, Chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, when questioned by a reporter said:
When we speak about religious freedom as the first of the freedoms, it’s not to aggrandize the Church, but to uphold the first line of defense for the dignity of the human person.
Oh yes, God forbid our churchmen should behave as if Jesus Christ really is the King of kings, His teachings non-negotiable, and His Church “eminently independent and above all others” (cf Pope Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissimo).
At this, the lesson should be coming into sharper focus: The old maxim is entirely true; as goes the Church, so goes the world.
In other words, the Church is the ultimate protagonist in the relationship between herself and the broader culture; not the other way around as the Fr. Barrons of the world would have it.
With this in mind, one understands that it is not so much the case that previously accepted moral principles have been rejected by a culture that, for no apparent reason, just so happened to go astray. Rather, it is most certainly the case that the leaders of the Church over the last half-century have failed in their obligation to form the culture in the ways of Christ according to the mission that He gave to them.
They did this, in part, by leaving the fundamentally important truth that the Holy Catholic Church teaches with the authority of Almighty God, in the Person of Christ the King, practically unspoken.
In the process, those ordained to speak in His name set the stage for what we are experiencing at this very moment.
You see, the culture at large, comprised as it is of individuals wounded by original sin, saddled with concupiscence, and ever in desperate need of the guidance of a Holy Mother who is not afraid to insist, was left all but orphaned, and so it easily fell prey to wiles of the Evil One who led many to mistake license for liberty and to embrace sin in the name of mercy.
This is how the United States, and the world, so quickly descended into the moral depravity that was enshrined into law in the United States by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v Hodges.
The solution to this terrible state of affairs is simple:
Our churchmen need to recover, and in short order, the wherewithal to proclaim the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ once more and return to the mission of Christianizing the entire world.
See if you can find one of the ten commandments or even Jesus words on the two greatest commandments in this catechism on “love is our mission” (i.e. they don’t even teach Catholics the commandments:
http://www.worldmeeting2015.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/LoveisOurMission_final_pdf.pdf
“Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40
“Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father’ s who sent me.” John 14:22-24
This sentence from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is repeated 2x in the world family catechism (p 67 &84): “Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.” Here is the context on page 67: “When we love one another chastely outside of marriage, the fruit is friendship: “The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship…. Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.”
Spiritual communion, REALLY–is that the same spiritual communion one makes at mass? Search “communion” and see what they are teaching “the faithful” that it means (what does chastity mean traditionally, search “modesty” see if you can find it in this doc). These “priests” (and I include Robber Baron/Barren Robber) are brainwashing anybody that comes in contact w/them – that is why I didn’t read this doc but only did word searches. It is propaganda worse than communism/1984.
If Father Barron wants to make reference to Bishop Sheen, may be this will help.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1130-fulton-sheen-Plea-For-Intolerance.htm
“This is one reason why, in the 1950’s, Archbishop Fulton Sheen could find such a wide and appreciative audience among Protestants and Jews, even as he laid out fundamentally Catholic perspectives on morality. But now that consensus has largely been shattered, and the Church finds itself opposed…”
No, Father Barron, Protestants and Jews appreciated the core of Truth contained in Fulton Sheen’s Catholic message. Very much as many people today might appreciate Catholic Truth, if it were presented to them. Instead we hear liberal double-speak.
” At this, the lesson should be coming into sharper focus: The old maxim is entirely true; as goes the Church, so goes the world.
In other words, the Church is the ultimate protagonist in the relationship between herself and the broader culture; not the other way around as the Fr. Barrons of the world would have it.”
But what does Father Barron actually teach ??
“Here is the wonderful and unnerving truth: the Catholic Church’s job is to call people to sanctity and to equip them for living saintly lives. Its mission is not to produce nice people, or people with hearts of gold or people with good intentions; its mission is to produce saints, people of heroic virtue. ”
Father Barron
Thanks for this wonderful article by Bishop Fulton Sheen. He really hits the nail on the head.
This is what’s wrong with Father Barron:
–
“This is one reason why, in the 1950’s, Archbishop Fulton Sheen could find such a wide and appreciative audience among Protestants and Jews, even as he laid out fundamentally Catholic perspectives on morality.”
–
There is no Catholic perspective on morality. There is only the Truth, revealed by God to the Catholic Church. Barron doesn’t believe in the One True Church. He has lost his faith. He has become a sweet talker who says nothing but lures stupid sheep over the cliff with his boring, banal endless talk.
–
Listening or reading this sad excuse for a man is like drowning in honey.
One big Fr. Barron mistake is his statement that Fulton Sheen had such a wide audience of non-catholics EVEN though he preached “fundamentally catholic perspectives on morality.” FUNDAMENTALLY CATHOLIC?? WHAT?Anybody who believes that garbage I recommend reading “Fulton Sheen, An Ardent Ecumenist” by Patrick Odou posted on “Tradition in Action” website. Here’s an example of what you will discover, mostly from Arch. Sheen’s autobiography “Treasure in Clay.” – “The good Hindu, the good Buddhist, the good Confucianist, the good Moslem are all saved by Christ and not by Buddhism or Islam or Confucianism but through their sacraments, their prayers, their asceticism, their morality, their good life.” ~ Arch. Fulton Sheen. No wonder Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II had no problem and even got away with saying some of the absurd things they did.
The surest sign of Satan at work and of his success is when bishops or priests or other Catholics with authority or a platform refuse by act or omission to recognise or zealously and courageously fight the most egregious evil on the largest scale, both inside and outside the Church, including by this kind of deadly, disingenuous and worldly rationalising, relativising and minimising of that catastrophic threat to souls – putting souls that ought to be on guard, to sleep with respect to that monumental threat. Fr Barron is doing the Devils work. He is a wolf.
Knowing and loving God means knowing and hating intrinsic evil. The enemy of God must be our enemy.
Bishop Fulton Sheen seemed to be clearly orthodox in his earlier decades but seemed to become somewhat infected by the language and ideas of VII, perhaps to stay in the public eye.
“Environing.” Such an obnoxious word choice.
A brilliant summation:
“You see, the culture at large, comprised as it is of individuals wounded by original sin, saddled with concupiscence, and ever in desperate need of the guidance of a Holy Mother who is not afraid to insist, was left all but orphaned, and so it easily fell prey to wiles of the Evil One who led many to mistake license for liberty and to embrace sin in the name of mercy.”
2 Thess 2:10 “because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying”
Well, it only would make sense to use him as a role model if the opposite were true and if he had converted towards orthodoxy not away from it and I know this discussion is about how dangerous and demented the Fr. Barrons of the worlds are but like I wrote earlier one of the major reasons a Fr. Barron, Pope John Paul II or Mother Theresa get away with what they preach is because Arch. Sheen had already been planting the poisonous seeds for so many years to millions of catholics before they were even around. IMO, Father Barron and Arch. Sheen are two peas in a pod or wolves in sheepskin.
If you disagree with him, I find your approach rather off putting. So off putting, it is hard to see if there is any real basis for your disagreement with him. Which appears to be lacking. And certainly, anyone born of the spirit should not refer to another brother this way, regardless of if they disagree with him. Father Barron lead me to understand the church in a depth I had never had before. Likely I would have walked away from what appeared to be a ritualistic and dead faith approach to worship if it wasn’t for Father Barron’s excellent Christ or Bible centered explanations of why we do what we do. And while I can enjoy the beautiful hearts of my faithful protestant friends, I remain in the Church because of the Eucharist, and priests like Father Barron who’s homilies help feed my desire to understand God more deeply.
Fr Barron is doing the same thing as Fr Morris – lying to the Faithful and the world about the nature and extent of the manifest and great evil, the enmity and defiance of God and all that is good and true.
“Get thee behind me, Satan.”
The primary reason to come into and “remain” in the Church was, is and always will be for ONE’S SALVATION outside which it is impossible to be saved. If one becomes Catholic and doesn’t even realize this primary and most important dogma of the Church it’s tough to even consider them as a Catholic. Yet I have never heard one “convert” from EWTN, Catholic Answers or Father Barron’s followers ever profess this most basic and fundamental reason for becoming a Catholic and that’s because modernists in today’s Church either have absolutely no idea what’s needed for salvation or have become too effeminate and tolerant to even teach it. I think it’s mostly the latter.
Also cowardice. Fear of confrontation or hurting feelings.
Do you ever mention to your heretic pals (protestants) that they are going to hell?
SAMPLE OF FATHER BARRON’S TEACHINGS
“Perhaps you’ve deliberately lied about another person and thereby ruined his character and reputation”
In the sixth chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, we find the account of Jesus sending out the Twelve, two by two, on mission. The first thing he gave them, Mark tells us, was “authority over unclean spirits.” And the first pastoral act that they performed was to “drive out many demons.” When I was coming of age in the ‘60s and ‘70s, it was common, even in seminaries, to dismiss such talk as primitive superstition—or perhaps to modernize it and make it a literary device, using symbolic language evocative of the struggle with evil in the abstract. But the problem with that approach is that it just does not do justice to the Bible. The biblical authors knew all about “evil” in both its personal and institutional expressions, but they also knew about a level of spiritual dysfunction that lies underneath both of those more ordinary dimensions. They knew about the world of fallen or morally compromised spirits. Jesus indeed battled sin in individual hearts as well as the sin that dwelt in institutional structures, but he also struggled with a dark power more fundamental and more dangerous than those.
What, or better, who is this threatening spiritual force? It is a devil, a fallen or morally compromised angel. Imagine a truly wicked person who is also very smart, very talented and very enterprising. Now raise that person to a far higher pitch of ontological perfection, and you will have some idea of what a devil is like. Very rarely, devils intervene in human affairs in vividly frightening and dramatic ways. But typically, devils act more indirectly and clandestinely, through temptation, influence and suggestion. One of the most terrifying religious paintings in the world is in the Cathedral of Orvieto in Italy. It is a depiction of the Antichrist by the great early renaissance painter Luca Signorelli. The artist shows the devil whispering into the ear of the Antichrist, and also working his arm through the vesture of his victim in such a way that it appears to be the Antichrist’s own arm, thereby beautifully symbolizing how the dark power acts precisely with us and through us.
What are his usual effects? We can answer that question quite well by examining the names that the Bible gives to this figure. He is often called diabolos in the Greek of the New Testament, a word derived from dia-balein, to throw apart, to scatter. God is a great gathering force, for by his very nature he is love; but the devil’s work is to sunder, to set one against the other. Whenever communities, families, nations, churches are divided, we sniff out the diabolic. The other great New Testament name for the devil is ho Satanas, which means “the accuser.” Perform a little experiment: gauge how often in the course of the day you accuse another person of something or find yourself accused. It’s easy enough to notice how often dysfunctional families and societies finally collapse into an orgy of mutual blaming. That’s satanic work. Another great biblical name for the devil is “the father of lies.” Because God is Truth, truthfulness—about oneself, about others, about the way things really are—is the key to smooth human relations. But how often we suffer because of untruth! Perhaps many years ago, someone told you a lie about yourself, and you’ve been wounded by it ever since. Perhaps you’ve deliberately lied about another person and thereby ruined his character and reputation. Consider how many wars and genocides have been predicated upon pervasive misperceptions and fabrications. Finally, the author of the first letter of John refers to the devil as “the murderer from the beginning.” God is life and thus the fosterer of human life. The devil—like an unhappy person who likes nothing better than to spread unhappiness around him—is the enemy of human flourishing, the killer of life. Does anyone really think that the massive slaughters that took place in the twentieth century—the piling up of tens of millions of corpses—can be adequately explained through political or psychological categories?
An extraordinarily important aspect of the good news of Christianity is that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has won victory over these dark forces. St. Paul said that we battle, not simply flesh and blood, but spiritual powers and principalities. But then he reminded us that nothing—neither height nor depth, nor any other power—could finally separate us from the love of Christ. Jesus has entrusted to his Church the means to apply this victory, the weapons, if you will, to win the spiritual warfare. These are the sacraments (especially the Eucharist and Confession), the Mass, the Bible, personal prayer, the rosary, etc. One of the tragedies of our time is that so many Catholics have dropped those weapons. Allow me to focus a bit more attention on Confession by switching from a military to a medical analogy. An open wound—untreated and un-bandaged—will rapidly become infected by germs and bacteria. Think of a pattern of serious sin as a sort of open wound in the spiritual order. Untreated, which is to say, un-confessed, it becomes a point of entry for less than savory spiritual powers.
Jesus sent out the Twelve to battle dark spirits. He still empowers his church to do the same. Don’t be reluctant to use the weapons—and the healing balms—that he has given.
Father Robert Barron
“Father barron and +sheen are 2 peas in the same pod or wolves in sheeps clothing ” more like chalk and cheese !. iv got to stand for +sheen as iv listened to hours & hours of his talks. He made an holy hour every day of his priestly life. He retired in 1969 was ordained in 1919. please watch and listen to video of easter sunday mass Chicago 1941 narrated by msg fulton sheen http://youtu.be/R6AOvStZS64
I consider Fr Barron one of the most dangerous priests in the world. More dangerous than Bergoglio in fact. Fr Barron is cunning and intelligent enough to cloak his heterodoxy in a veneer of orthodox statements and catholic sounding phrases.
But underneath this flimsy layer of pretense, you’ll find the most dangerous poison of all, his support (nay, promotion) of the heretic Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s (granted the cardinalate by “St” JP2) the heresy that, “we have a reasonable hope hell is empty”.
I dare say that not even Bergoglio has been so explicit in this regard as Von Balthasar and Fr Barron. And because Fr Barron sounds and looks so much more theological proficient than the likes of Francis, he is all the more credible for million of neo-catholic dupes.
“are any human beings in hell? We don’t know” (1:40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kA-1QEJi5Y
HERESY, HERESY, HERESY! LIE, LIE, LIE!
–
Reality check from the message of Fatima:
–
FIRST PART
“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.
–
SECOND PART
–
[Our Lady] You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart…”
–
The proud Fr Barron thinks he is more enlightened than all the saints, doctors and holy theologians of the Church, that Holy Scripture is misleading, and he would have us believe the Fatima message was concocted through the puerile imaginings of some shepherd children! Blasphemy!
I could see this coming… Nothing good would come of the “canonization” of JP2.
Now heretics like Fr Barron are starting to quote him to support their skewed and perverted theology.
“As St. John Paul II said, the Church always proposes, never imposes.”
Ironically, TWN, the Novus Ordo Catechism was first published in 1984.
He also teaches that ‘we can reasonably’ hope that no one’s in hell. In which case, I guess it makes sense that he wrote a glowing public ‘eulogy’ ( http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/06/04/in_defense_of_andrew_greeley.html ) of Fr Andrew Greeley who wrote ‘sexy’ novels and protected pedophile clergymen.
–
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/060224
–
As to why he felt the need to paint Greeley as great guy, who can say? All we can know is that he did.
What would Pope Saint Pius X have to say about Barron’s winsome, ‘smoked-cucumber anyone?’ mission?:
–
Pope Saint Pius X, Letter on the Sillon: “No, my Venerable Brethren, we must be insistent in recalling, at a time of social and intellectual anarchy such as the present, when each man sets up as his own teacher and lawgiver, that we must not try to build the city except as God has built it, that society cannot be soundly built upon foundations other than those the Church has laid for it, and not unless it is she who directs the labour. It is no use saying we must create a new civilisation, or build the new city in the clouds ; it has been built, it is already in existence, in the shape of Christian civilisation, of the Catholic City. It is this which must be constantly installed and restored upon these its foundations, which are both natural and divine, against the repeated onslaughts of an unhealthy utopianism based on revolt and impiety : Omnia instaurare in Christo.”
–
As to highest of Novus Ordo watchwords, ‘human-dignity’. Bishop Sanborn asks: “What dignity does man have after original sin, apart from redemption?” http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/07-01-15-radio-network-news-new-sponsored-episode/
–
“The Antichrist needs a world which is not merely sinful, but which enthrones sin to the same extent that Catholic civilization enthroned Christ.” http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Seminary_Newsletter_June_2015.pdf
The only reason to remain in the Catholic Church is because it is TRUE. “The Eucharist” is not a medicine for ‘wounded’ souls. It is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
–
You think my approach is uncharitable? You have been spared what I really wanted to say about this killer of souls!
–
What is a “ritualistic and dead faith?” If you think Father Barron has led you from that into a new faith which is warm and welcoming, you were poorly taught what the One True Church really teaches.
–
Your ‘faithful protestant friends’ cannot be saved where they are, so yes, enjoy their beautiful hearts, but for God’s sake, and theirs, urge them to leave their sects and join the only Church through which they have a chance of salvation.
–
I refuse to be soft-headed about the truth. And there is a vast difference in being off-putting, and speaking falsehoods. My message is true, even though it may seem harsh to those who are not used to hearing truth.
This all sounds very nice, eh? But this is the show stopper:
–
“Jesus indeed battled sin in individual hearts as well as the sin that dwelt in institutional structures, but he also struggled with a dark power more fundamental and more dangerous than those.”
–
In the middle of what sounds so good we find the above sentence. Jesus did NOT struggle with any dark power! He is GOD. He is above the struggle. He shows US how to struggle with evil powers.
–
This blasphemy is hidden in a vomit of honey, again. What this does is take away the Divinity of Jesus. Poor Jesus, struggling away against the sin in men’s souls, and in the ‘institutions’ of His day, and against dark, evil powers! This is not Catholic!
–
How much more of this awful stuff can we read without wanting to cry?
–
I can see that those who have been steeped in modernist thought can be fooled. Thank God for Louie and others who blog the hard truth – the truth is out there but we have to be docile to it, not put up barriers of hurt feelings
Well, does God propose His Commandments or impose them? You are correct. The softening of the words leads to softening of the brain.
O, the words of these holy Popes! So clear, so courageous – actually not courageous at all – simply the truth. For a pope to speak like Pius X did NOW would be courageous.
“The Eucharist” is not a medicine for ‘wounded’ souls.”
This is an interesting sentence. Of course the Eucharist is the ultimate medicine for properly prepared formerly wounded souls. By properly prepared souls I mean those receiving the Eucharist fasting and after a good Confession.
But I first heard this truth distorted into falsehood during a homily in my NO days. The priest presented, definitely and intentionally, that the Eucharist should be taken as a medicine for wounded souls. A medicine which would of itself, by its presence, purify directly a sinful soul. There was a definite implication that prior Confession was not necessary. It struck me forcefully as being a novel approach which I had never heard before. However, I accepted it in good faith, because he was a Priest and he would know – fool that I am. I had been brought up in an environment where Catholics trusted their Priests, Bishops and Pope implicitly. In my youth nobody went to communion without fasting meticulously after prior Confession and up to that homily, neither had I.
By the end of my NO days, very few people went to Confession on a Saturday afternoon. Probably less than a dozen. However, on every Sunday morning the entire congregation went to Communion routinely. This sinful, false new approach explains, to my mind, the great decline in the numbers of Catholics regularly going to Confession.
“Jesus did NOT struggle with any dark power! He is GOD.”
Was He not tempted by the devil for forty days in the wilderness?
What’s sad is that the Protestants continue to be far bolder than Catholics when it comes to defending the reign of Christ the King.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/07/03/biblical-response-same-sex-marriage/
Louie, in order to proclaim the social kingship of Jesus Christ, it must be insisted upon that the Vicar of Christ crown himself once again with the three-tiered Tiara.
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Perhaps you might find a degree of consolation, as you reflect on a commentary on the Blessed Sacrament…
REGARDING THE SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF OUR FAITH
The ultimate means by which we understand Jesus Christ is not the Scripture but the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is Christ himself, personally and actively present. The embodiment of the paschal mystery, the Eucharist is Jesus’ love for the world unto death, his journey into godforsakenness in order to save the most desperate of sinners, his heart broken open in compassion. And this is why it is through the lens of the Eucharist that Jesus comes most fully and vividly into focus.
And thus we see the third great evangelical lesson. Successful evangelists are persons of the Eucharist. They are immersed in the rhythms of the Mass; they practice eucharistic adoration; they draw the evangelized to a participation in the body and blood of Jesus. They know that bringing sinners to Jesus Christ is never primarily a matter of personal witness, or inspiring sermonizing, or even exposure to the patterns of the Scripture. It is primarily a matter of seeing the broken heart of God through the broken bread of the Eucharist.
So prospective evangelists, do what Jesus did. Walk with sinners, open the Book, break the Bread.
Fr Robert Barron
Dear Peter,
My understanding is that Jesus was tempted externally, not internally. What I mean is, the offer came from the outside, but mentally Jesus never “struggled” with whether or not to accept the temptation. I think the word “struggle” implies that one might lose the fight as so the word cannot be used to describe how Jesus dealt with evil.
Peace and Blessings
Mike Poulin
Thanks for the timeless article from Bishop Sheen
Just took a look at Fr. Barron’s Word on Fire Blog where he comments on Laudato Si. There’s a whopping grand total of 4 comments on that particular entry, and it seems there’s a lot of blocked comments throughout the blog too, so obviously few people are reading him and he’s not too interested in facing critics.
When I taught my Catechism and Bible classes, sometimes I’d make a mistake, and someone of the attendees might let me know. Then I’d go back and research the issue and then next class, I would apologize and set things straight. Often times my imprecise wording and phrasing was the problem. More often I had an incorrect or incomplete understanding. But I was always will to go back and examine the issue. I wonder if Fr Barron will back pedal his “hope no one’s in Hell” idea, because it seems to fly in the face of what Jesus said. Please pray for me folks.
Peace and Blessings!
Michael Francis Poulin
Thankfully, it is a blessing for you and your family that you remain in the Church. You have to allow some room for those of us who have been fighting and resisting the flat out heresy that has been unleashed on the OTF since Vatican II. Unfortunately, Fr Barron is a promoter and complicit with the pure nonsense that we may have a reasonable belief that there is no one in hell. It’s pure fantasy and heretical. (Check this blog. Louie has addressed Fr B).
More importantly Fr B is a rector of a major seminary (Mundelin in Illinois) Put this together with his measured, self assured tone, rector and rock star status and its inevitable that a lot of people will be seriously misled. In addition to his (mis)take on Hell, Do not hold your breath waiting for him to preach/advise:
1) The dogma “That there is no salvation outside the Church”
2) The dogma from The Council of Trent that the Tridentine (Latin) Mass is the Mass of the Church forever.
Contrary to Fr Barron spewing his heterodox novelty (paraphrased) “that we have a reasonable belief that there is no one in hell” There is a Hell and most people go there. If not why would God send His Son to redeem us (from what?); not to mention that in the NT, “hell” is mentioned 90X versus 27X for heaven. You would think maybe “Hell” is real. Check out the sermon from St Leonard of Maurice. It is a classic
http://www.trueletterofoursavior.com/stleonard.htm
Fr Barron would be well advised to read it. Take care.
“But Like I wrote earlier” etc…
Missed it. But since you’re making very serious charges against Abshp Sheen, I would appreciate the link to your missive and it’s supporting documentation to back it up. Trust you can do so with facts rather than assertions. Take care.
To paraphrase Cassius in Shakespeare’s Caesar: ‘The fault, dear Fr. Barron, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.’
E.M.,
–
Fr Barron may have nice things to say here and there (that is precisely what makes him so dangerous), but that is entirely inconsequential given that they are mixed in with a deadly brew of modernist poison. You only need a drop of poison in a beverage to make the entire drink lethal.
Yes, Peter, you’ve put your finger on it. Another thing that is puzzling. Who is doing all this wounding? In my head, when I hear about someone being wounded I wonder who shot/stabbed/whatever the victim. But that makes no sense. We injure ourselves by sin. This is self-inflicted wounding if you will.
–
the modern way to inverting this truth gets people off the hook and takes away the personal responsibility.
–
Like talking about divorce as something that just happens. Nonsense. Yes, there are cases of abandonment by husbands or wives, but even this has background.
–
Most divorce comes from a complete lack of understanding of love, sacrifice, penance, and the infusion of grace to those who ask God for it.
–
To think that Our Dearest Lord comes into the bodies and souls of those who are in mortal sin to ‘heal’ them is sacrilege and a twisting of truth.
Yes, and what’s interesting about St. Leonard’s sermon is that it was given to mostly priests. They were to learn about the many, many souls that plunge themselves into hell so they could give their lives to save the souls in their charge.
–
Compare the Cure of Ars to Father Barron!
My facebook icon (i detest facebook but you need a FB account on many sites in order to be allowed to comment) is of St Leonard of Port Maurice. His sermon that you reference should be heard by every Catholic.
More incomprehensible, but soft, gentle modernist babble. “They know that bringing sinners to Jesus Christ is never primarily a matter of personal witness, or inspiring sermonizing, or even exposure to the patterns of the Scripture.” What the heck does that mean?
–
This priest has lost himself in psychological double-talk. Jesus did not walk with sinners! He told them to stop sinning or be damned! Father Barron tells you not to rely on the Scriptures, then says “open the book” and “break the Bread.” None of this would bring anyone into the One True Church because they would not be able to understand what the heck he was going on about!
–
Can you imagine sending this priest into missionary lands? What would he say to bring pagans into the Church? Again, read the life and sermons of the Cure of Ars. Now there was a priest, there was a man, there was someone who knew the difference between “Eucharist” and the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Yes, and imagine the true humility the popes of the true Church had when they allowed themselves to be submerged beneath the trappings and rituals of the Office? The man and his personality were subject to Tradition. Wonderful, true humility.
Ouch!
Dear Louie,
You described this utopian carrot the modernists have dangled for our society SO well: “in the hope that it will one day, for God only knows what reason, choose to re-embrace, just as inexplicably, the moral precepts that it currently holds in contempt”.
__
As so many have lost the ability to distinguish between good tolerance (like skin color) and evil tolerance (false religion, abortion, and sodomy), Satan knows he is thus empowered to corrupt entire societies with false promises of things like universal fraternity, equality, prosperity, unity in diversity, peace, ecology, and even no-cost eternal salvation. As you pointed out, Our Lord’s “Go teach all nations all that I have instructed you, Baptizing them…” is what stands starkly against it all.
So do his instructions “When your brother sins, correct him…” “If he rejects even the Church, treat him as a heathen or tax collector.” When we cast aside all anathemas and use Christ’s parables- like that of the weeds and wheat- to falsely teach that God wants no distance placed between his flocks and the wolf-packs of unrepentant evildoers, it’s just like advocating we let serial killers roam free, asking all to expect that our “merciful” action- has cured them.
___
IOHO, the modernists currently in power in Rome won’t likely stop until Russia is collegially consecrated and Fatima’s promised miracle is granted, and will push this false tolerance till God stops them.
Rorate Caeli currently reports the words of Mons. Paglia, (President of the Pontifical Council for the Family), when asked by the press about the presence or non-presence of homosexual couples at the coming 8th World Meeting of Families, Sept. 22-27 in Philidelphia. He said:
“We are following Instrumentum Laboris on the Synod to the letter.
Everyone can come, nobody is excluded. And if anyone feels excluded, I’ll leave the 99 little sheep and go and get him”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/07/pontifical-family-council-president.html
======
In truth, what he should have said is, “I’ll leave the 100 little sheep and go get him.”
Sermon on fewness of those saved ( St leonard maurice etc)
http://youtu.be/RMUPBFeI5Hc
Dear Barbara,
Perhaps there is more to this than “psychological double talk “…
In the context of The Road to Emmaus( Luke 24:13-35), Father Barron is reflecting on how to bring others to Christ…Do you feel there is no truth in what he says here?
”
The greatest evangelist is, of course, Jesus himself, and there is no better presentation of Jesus’ evangelical technique than Luke’s masterful narrative concerning the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The story opens with two people going the wrong way. In Luke’s Gospel, Jerusalem is the spiritual center of gravity: it is the locale of the Last Supper, the cross, the resurrection and the sending of the Spirit. It is the charged place where the drama of salvation unfolds. So in walking away from the capital city, these two erstwhile disciples of Jesus are going against the grain.
Jesus joins them on their journey—though we are told that they are prevented from recognizing him—and he asks them what they are talking about. Throughout his ministry, Jesus associated with sinners. He stood shoulder to shoulder in the muddy waters of the Jordan with those seeking forgiveness through the baptism of John; over and again, he ate and drank with disreputable types, much to the chagrin of the self-righteous; and at the end of his life, he was crucified in between two thieves. Jesus hated sin, but he liked sinners and was consistently willing to move into their world and to engage them on their terms.
And this is a first great evangelical lesson. The successful evangelist does not stand aloof from the experience of sinners, passing easy judgment on them, praying for them from a distance; on the contrary, she loves them so much that she joins them and deigns to walk in their shoes and to feel the texture of their experience.
Prompted by Jesus’ curious questions, one of the travelers, Cleopas by name, recounts all of the “things” concerning Jesus of Nazareth. “He was a prophet mighty in word and deed before God and all the people; our leaders, though, put him to death; we thought he would be the redeemer of Israel; this very morning, there were reports that he had risen from the dead.”
Cleopas has all of the “facts” straight; there is not one thing he says about Jesus that is wrong. But his sadness and his flight from Jerusalem testify that he doesn’t see the picture.
I love the clever and funny cartoons in the New Yorker magazine, but occasionally there is a cartoon I just don’t understand. I’ve taken in all of the details; I’ve seen the main characters and the objects around them; I’ve understood the caption. Yet I don’t see why it’s funny. And then there comes a moment of illumination: though I haven’t seen any further detail, though no new piece of the puzzle has emerged, I discern the pattern that connects them together in a meaningful way. In a word, I “get” the cartoon.
Having heard Cleopas’ account, Jesus says, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets said.” And then he opens the Scriptures to them, disclosing the great Biblical patterns that make sense of the “things” that they have witnessed.
Without revealing to them any new detail about himself, Jesus shows them the form, the overarching design, the meaning—and through this process they begin to “get” him: their hearts are burning within them. This is the second great evangelical lesson. The successful evangelist uses the Scriptures in order to disclose the divine patterns and ultimately the Pattern who is made flesh in Jesus.
Without these clarifying forms, human life is a hodge-podge, a blur of events, a string of meaningless happenings. The effective evangelist is a man of the Bible, for the Scripture is the means by which we “get” Jesus Christ and, through him, our lives.
The two disciples press him to stay with them as they draw near the town of Emmaus. Jesus sits down with them, takes bread, says the blessing, breaks it and gives it to them, and in that moment they recognize him. Though they were, through the mediation of Scripture, beginning to see, they still did not fully grasp who he was. But in the eucharistic moment, in the breaking of the bread, their eyes are opened.
The ultimate means by which we understand Jesus Christ is not the Scripture but the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is Christ himself, personally and actively present. The embodiment of the paschal mystery, the Eucharist is Jesus’ love for the world unto death, his journey into godforsakenness in order to save the most desperate of sinners, his heart broken open in compassion. And this is why it is through the lens of the Eucharist that Jesus comes most fully and vividly into focus.
And thus we see the third great evangelical lesson. Successful evangelists are persons of the Eucharist. They are immersed in the rhythms of the Mass; they practice eucharistic adoration; they draw the evangelized to a participation in the body and blood of Jesus. They know that bringing sinners to Jesus Christ is never primarily a matter of personal witness, or inspiring sermonizing, or even exposure to the patterns of the Scripture. It is primarily a matter of seeing the broken heart of God through the broken bread of the Eucharist.
So prospective evangelists, do what Jesus did. Walk with sinners, open the Book, break the Bread. ”
Father Robert Barron
“…was consistently willing to move into their world and to engage them on their terms”. What a Novus Ordo thing to say, and how wrong. The terms upon which Our Lord ‘engaged’ with sinners was and is His own. That He goes in the midst of them is not in any way being ‘of’ them or their ‘terms’ (be in the world but not of the world). Why do we think so many people could not take his ‘hard sayings’.
–
The road to Emmaus incident is a strange one to choose to preach on ‘sin’ as well. The two men were disciples of Jesus already. Nonetheless, they held the erroneous, but common, Jewish view that Christ was going to restore the racial kingdom of Israel: “But their eyes were held, that they should not know Him…O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken…And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning Him…And it came to pass, whilst He was at table with them, He took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him: and He vanished out of their sight.” Luke 24
–
I wonder what part of ‘o foolish and slow of heart to believe’ followed by a faultess exegesis of the prophets on the Messias, then followed by the Holy Eucharist, Barron thinks is meeting sinners on their ‘own terms’.
–
PS. for a laugh: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2015/07/scotus-rules-for-children/
The bits that Team Bergoglio decided to omit from St Francis’ ‘canticle’ which they appropriated for the ‘recyclical’:
–
“Be praised, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of You;
through those who endure sickness and trial.
Happy those who endure in peace,
for by You, Most High, they will be crowned.
Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Bodily Death,
from whose embrace no living person can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those she finds doing Your most holy will.
The second death can do no harm to them.”
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.VZd_8vlSUoZ
Hey Mike,
As I have understood it, He was truly God and truly Man, i.e. whilst God in His Divine nature, as human as you and me in His human nature. The only difference between us being that He never sinned. In His human nature, he felt and suffered temptation, and all human emotions, exactly as we do.
God bless.
“… she loves them so much that she joins them and deigns to walk in their shoes and to feel the texture of their experience.”
“she”? The modernism is sprinkled around. How exactly do I go about walking in their shoes and feeling the texture of their experience when I evangelize sodomites?
dear salvemur,
thank you for another superb & oh, so pertinent comment. Thank you so much for these links. All here would benefit from listening to the audio to which you linked, inasmuch as we are about to suffer through Francis’ upcoming visit to nyc -USA & the United Nations located in our fair city.. This, on Francis’ way to the Family mtg in Philly, all leading up to the Synod in October.
This just comes to show what any catholic with half a brain already knew – that Francis’ “encyclical” has absolutely nothing at all to do with calling people to conversion and repentance, and bringing souls into the solitary ark of salvation.
–
What flows out of the pen ultimately flows out of the heart.
Think about that.
What’ll come first, the consecration of Russia, followed by the conversion of modernist Rome, or the conversion of the latter, followed by the heeding of Our Lady of Fatima’s requests?
–
I can’t see how Our Lady will finally be obeyed until the hierarchy (those few that still retain the faith anyhow) firmly turn their back away from the errors of Vatican II, at which point a consecration of Russia seems likely.
–
Modernism and the Fatima message are in direct, clear opposition. Fr Barron’s and Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s heresy of universal salvation shows this all too clearly. There can be no compromise between the two.
Hence, a modernist pope will NEVER fully obey Our Lady’s request.
We first need to have a fully Catholic pope sitting in the throne of St Peter, who will then implement Heaven’s request.
–
What will convert the few remaining hierarchy that still clings to the dogma of the faith away from Modernism?
I believe it will be a world-wide, full blown, physical chastisement, which may not be too far off.
–
It is inescapably clear from the historical sources that in the years preceding WWI there was a general expectation that some kind of utterly fatal conflagration was not too far off ahead (and they knew, that this time around, due to modern weaponry, it would result in MASSIVE casualties).
I’d argue we’re living through a similar situation right now.
PS How ironic. I just went back to yahoo.com and found this linked articled:
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/07/how-world-war-3-will-be-fought/
–
Are they prepping the masses for precisely such a conflict, so that when (God forbid) it does arrive, people will have been conditioned to accept it as an unavoidable fact of history? Why are we hearing more and more the term “WW3” being non-chalantly tossed around in the MSM?
Dear Barbara,
“… Who is doing all this wounding?”
In my humble, sincere opinion, the judeo-masons are.
Everything we see results directly from the calculated, cold-blooded assault of satanic judeo-masony upon the Holy Catholic Church, in order to destroy it from within.
Barron might be talking about a specific ‘she’. It could be a number of women who are more than happy to meet error on its own terms, and then (as is necessary when error and truth are placed on the same level) leave them confirmed in their error. Mother Teresa, for instance, as a good disciple of Wojtyla, encouraged hindus to stay hindus and sikhs to stay sikhs. And in her convent in Calcutta there is a crucifix, it reads, “I thirst for souls”. Heaven only knows what they meant to her. “I love all religions”, she said, and spent herself in corporal works of mercy (helping the body); works that were dead, because they were not in service of spiritual mercy (saving the soul).
–
If Barron doesn’t have a specific woman who likes to evangelise by tolerantly confirming people in there error, he’s just doing the gender sensitive thing. Ms Jenner and Bergoglio would approve.
de maria. It was supposed to be smoked-salmon-cucumbers, but I guess even the salmon was wise enough to protest such an absurd sense of ‘mission’. Smoked cucumbers it is.
A few years ago, my then newest grandchild was to be baptized. My son married an Afrikaans, Dutch Reformed girl. I absolutely insisted, (after bloodshed with his new mother-in-law) that Isabella be baptized Catholic. When I arrived in the church, I noticed that the in-law family occupied an entire pew. I squeezed in between the brother and father to show my appreciation for their attendance in the Catholic church and to try to make them more comfortable there. When the time came, I stood up to join the queue for Communion and signalled by hand for the brother to remain seated. When I returned from Communion to the other end of the pew, imagine my surprise to find the pew empty! The whole bunch, including an uncle, who is a Dutch Reformed Dominee, had gone to communion!!! Our parish priest, a monsiegneur no less, who knew very well that that they were Dutch Reformed, had given them all communion!
How Catholic is that?
Here’s wishing a wonderful, happy Independence Day for all Americans!!!
God bless America!!!
Thinking about poor Father Barron this morning I wondered what he has to teach about “eucharist” that has not been taught by St. John Eudes’ wonderful writings on The Blessed Sacrament? And what he has to teach about hell that St. Leonard of Port Maurice has not taught using Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
–
I wonder what poor Cardinal Kasper has to teach about fornication that St. Augustine has not taught? That Mary Magdalen’s conversion has not taught?
–
I wonder what poor Cardinal Marx and his cohort have to teach us about marriage that St. Monica has not taught? Or Elizabeth Leseur has not taught even as her husband (a future priests!) used all his powers of persuasion to destroy her Catholic Faith?
–
Poor Father Barron is late to the table. Why reinterpret perennial teaching? Could it be that it is unpalatable? And he does it in a manner that needs further interpretation because it’s so garbled with honey-talk!
–
Why do we have such itchy ears? Why do we crave teaching that fits our desires? Why are there so many ready and willing to fill our minds with honied crap?
Thank you, dear Dr. Lamb!
Hey Jacobum,
Thanks for the wake up call from St. Leonard. If that doesn’t shake one out of worldliness, nothing will. I once read that St. Anthony said a prayer every time he heard a bell ring. I adopted the practice and have ever since coupled specific prayers to specific actions – getting into the bath, getting into the car etc.etc. This way one doesn’t forget and one ends up praying more than one otherwise would do. Now, if I read my Missal correctly, there is a plenary indulgence, once a month, for one who recites the Litany of Loreto daily. I bookmarked my computer, so every morning after falling out of bed and lighting a fag, I turn the kettle on then stumble through to my computer, bleary eyed, to check emails etc. When I turn it on, I click then say the Litany. This way I never forget and hopefully clock up a plenary indulgence every month for Our Lady to use according to her will. (St. Louie Marie de Montfort.) Hopefully then, when my time comes there will be a gang of souls out of purgatory asking Our Lord to save ol’ Pete and his family. Just an idea.
johnj, A question: How does Pius IX’s statement essentially differ from Archbishop Sheen’s; “We all know that those who are invincibly ignorant of our religion and who nevertheless lead an honest and upright life, can, under the influence of divine light and divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who knows and sees the mind, the heart, the thoughts, and the dispositions of every man, cannot in His infinite bounty and clemency permit any one to suffer eternal punishment who is not guilty through his own fault” (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR, August 10, 1863).
How sweet are Your words to my taste,
Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psalms 119:103
Dear In Hoc,
You may be right. We may be revisiting the “time of Noah” Jesus predicted, with the prophesied major chastisements coming any time. BUT… it’s wise to recall that God’s plans have never been limited by what may seems natural or logical to us creatures. 🙂 🙂
__
–Proverbs 21:1 “As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it.”
–Genesis 50:20 (Joseph to his brothers) “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.”
–Proverbs 16:33 regarding what men view as “chance”: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”
–In Isaiah 45 God said to the Persian King Cyrus: “I will go before thee, and humble the great ones of the earth… For the sake of Israel my elect, I have even called thee by name.. girded thee, AND THOU HAST NOT KNOWN ME..That they may know (from east to west) that there is none besides me. I am the Lord . I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil ..I the Lord do all these things.” …”..shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it: What art thou making..?” They are all confounded and ashamed: the forgers of errors are gone together into confusion..”
__
One author counted 15 statements in Scripture that say God hardened someone’s heart. But God also softens hardened hearts, as St. Paul reminds us speaking of Nebuchodonosor: in Rom. 9:18 “Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will..”
=====
Nebuchodonosor was first used by God to punish and capture the Israelites; then, at the height of his pride -was himself punished by God with madness; and finally, being Graced with restored sanity, he fully repented:
__
Dan.4: 27-34: Nebuchodonosor said: “Is not this the great Babylon, which I have built to be the seat of the kingdom, by the strength of my power, and in the glory of my excellence? [28] -while the word was yet in the king’ s mouth, a voice came down from heaven .. they shall cast thee out from among men, and thy dwelling shall be with cattle and wild beasts: thou shalt eat grass like an ox…, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. [30] The same hour the word was fulfilled– he was driven away..did eat grass like an ox..his .. his hairs grew like the feathers of eagles, and his nails like birds’ claws.”
__
[31] ” at the end of the days, I, Nabuchodonosor lifted up my eyes to heaven, and my sense was restored to me: and I blessed the most High, and praised and glorified Him that liveth for ever: -His power is an everlasting power, and his kingdom is to all generations. [32]- all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing before him: for He doth according to His will, as well with the powers of heaven, as among the inhabitants of the earth: and there is none that can resist His hand, and say to him: Why hast thou done it? [33] “At the same time my sense returned to me, and I came to the honour and glory of my kingdom: and my shape returned to me: and my nobles, and my magistrates sought for me, and I was restored to my kingdom: and greater majesty was added to me. [34] Therefore I Nabuchodonosor do now praise, and magnify, and glorify the King of heaven: because all his works are true, and his ways judgments, and them that walk in pride he is able to abase.”
========
Can God bring about such a change in Pope Francis that he could be the one to order the Collegial consecration?
Hard to imagine, yes. But “ALL things are possible with God”.
Thank you. The “realclearreligion” link provides a number of important insights into the people and things that obviously influenced Father Barron’s ideas when he was young and impressionable. It appears he was taken “under the wings” of Msgr Quinn and Fr. Greeley, which it seems he found a bit overwhelming and flattering. Understanding what forms a persons character does not excuse what evil we see evidenced in it later. It can help the unwary admirer.
One does not tolerate the good but rather upholds and loves it; one does not tolerate the evil but rather rejects and hates it. Tolerance is of evil behaviour in particular people in particular circumstances for the purpose of avoiding greater evil.
I disagree with your statement that the “only” reason to stay in the Church is because it’s TRUE. I think that’s one reason but not the only reason for the Church has always taught the most important and primary reason is for SALVATION and that’s why the primary dogma of the Church has always been “There is no SALVATION outside of the Church” and NOT “There is no TRUTH outside of the Church.” What makes TRUTH and the EUCHARIST important to begin with is that they are both needed for SALVATION.
Unlike Pope Pius IX, Arch. Sheen names certain specific religions which gives the false impression that it’s BECAUSE of those false religions rather than IN SPITE of them that one could be saved. It also sounds to me like he’s saying they have some kind of valid sacraments that can help one attain salvation.
Just check “Tradition in Action” website. They have a few articles written by Patrick Odou and Marian Horvat and many quotes taking from Arch. Sheens own autobiography ” Treasure in Clay.” He was practicing all the interfaith ecumenical baloney that’s destroyed the Church before anyone else.
Besides thats not the only questionable thing he had said but just one of many. He was also practicing, promoting and making popular the interfaith ecumenical garbage that has helped almost totally destroy the Church way before it became so acceptable largely thanks to him and his shenanigans.
“provides a number of important insights into the people and things that obviously influenced Father Barron”. Good point.
Those ignored (or appropriated) Saints belong to the Church of Christ. Sadly, the ‘honied crap’ that ‘poor’ kasper and company have to teach belongs to the book of belial (do they know? that is not our concern). The latest from that book: “It is preferable that…even in the Church, come to an end…The only irreplaceable thing in the Church is the Holy Spirit…” Bergoglio ( http://www.asianews.it/news-en/%E2%80%9CIt-is-preferable-that-every-service%2c-even-in-the-Church%2c-come-to-an-end%2c%E2%80%9D-says-pope-34683.html )
–
Lies, lies, lies, lies. The father-of-lies is having a field day with these people. The Church is visible in her four marks – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Without even one of these the Church has failed and Christ is made a liar. Bergoglio’s concept of a churchless ‘church’ is an explicit denial of the doctrine of the body and soul of the Church being a visible whole, plainly and clearly reitrated by Pope Leo XIII here: “If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible. For this reason the Church is so often called in the Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ — “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) — and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it…so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it…It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ could be the one or the other as that a man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of soul and body is to human nature.” Pope Leo XIII, encyclical Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.
–
Bergoglio’s words deny the visible Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. His ‘Holy Spirit church’ is precisely what the protestants have which is why there is no visible unity, no apostolic succession, no Catholicity = no holiness and no Church.
Rom. 9:18 refers to the pharaoh…
😉
Refusing to take responsibility for one’s actions is one of the hallmarks of the modern (weak & effeminate) man.
–
“We have a reasonable hope hell is empty” fits in nicely with this effeminate view of life. We can do whatever we like, however we like, whenever we like, and we are not responsible for those actions. Isn’t it nice & comforting to think that, despite this, we are still making it to heaven, not having to worry about those pesky God given and natural laws that make life so – uh, “inconvenient”?
–
Now please, let’s allow “modern man” some peace of mind, let him lie comfortable and cozy in his couch, turn on the TV with the remote control (it’s too much effort doing it manually), and allow his mind to be occupied with more serious business such as the latest MTV porno-awards festival, or perhaps the latest sports match of his favourite football/rugby team etc…
Aaaaaaaah… Isn’t life so… Comfortable and “free” of worry for “modern man”…?
😉
PS The short answer to the Q “Poor Father Barron is late to the table. Why reinterpret perennial teaching?”
Because “perennial teaching” is not palatable to weak and effeminate “modern man”.
Peter,
–
Regarding your reply way at the top:
“In His human nature, he [Christ] felt and suffered temptation…exactly as we do.”
I think that’s a dangerous, if not flat-out erroneous thing to say.
We suffer temptation and the concupiscence of the flesh through the effects of original sin. Our Lord was conceived without original sin, therefore one cannot say he suffered temptation, “exactly as we do”. Furthermore, I will venture to say, that the divine nature being united to the humanity in the hypostatic union, would lead his soul to be strengthened in such a way that would make temptation (like one of the commenters mentioned) more of an external “struggle” (for lack of a better word) than an “internal” one which implies the possibility of defeat in the face of temptation.
–
Finally, Christ is the God-Man, therefore he could not ever possibly have experienced defeat in the face of temptation, so that he could not have “felt it” the way we humans do, knowing that through our frailty and weakness, that sometimes we DO fall into to sin through temptation.
AN EFFEMINATE VIEW OF LIFE
“We have a reasonable hope hell is empty” fits in nicely with this effeminate view of life. We can do whatever we like, however we like, whenever we like, and we are not responsible for those actions. Isn’t it nice & comforting to think that, despite this, we are still making it to heaven, not having to worry about those pesky God given and natural laws that make life so – uh, “inconvenient”?
–”
NOT QUITE SO EFFEMINATE….
I had wanted to find a place which would be a fitting visual accompaniment to the section of our Catholicism series dealing with Purgatory—and I wasn’t disappointed. I don’t know any other place on earth that better exemplifies the idea and practice of purgative suffering than Lough Derg.
Tradition has it that St. Patrick himself came to this island in the 5th century in order to spend a penitential retreat of forty days and forty nights. And from the Middle Ages to the present day, pilgrims have journeyed there, in imitation of Patrick, to do penance and to pray.
When the retreatants arrive, they are instructed immediately to take off their shoes and socks, and they endure the three day process barefoot, regardless of the weather. That first day, they fast (eating nothing but dry bread and a soup composed of hot water and pepper), and they move through a series of prayers and spiritual exercises. The first night, they are compelled to stay awake, fasting from sleep. If someone dozes off, his fellow pilgrims are expected to wake him up. The following day, they continue with their fast and their exercises, but they are allowed to sleep that night.
The third day involves still more prayer and culminates with confession and Mass. After the liturgy, the pilgrims put their shoes back on and are ferried across to the mainland.
Though we didn’t want to disturb the prayer of the retreatants, a few of the pilgrims approached us. One, a man in his mid-seventies, told us that he has made the Lough Derg retreat every year since 1957; and another, a woman in her sixties, told us that the feeling of freedom and inner peace that she has upon leaving the retreat is incomparable.
Now I’m sure that many people, especially in our largely secularized culture, would raise a number of questions about a place like Lough Derg. Why would anyone willingly endure such suffering? Why would a gracious God expect this of any of his children? Isn’t all of this a sign of neurosis, the fruit of low self-esteem and the product of a sick culture?
Well, I know lots of people who quite willingly go through an hour or more of intense physical exercise every day—running on tread mills, climbing on stair masters, lifting heavy weights—in order to assure the health of their bodies. And soon the Chicago Bears and the other professional football teams will commence grueling two-a-day workouts in the late summer sun in order to prepare for the rigors of the NFL season.
And young people all across the country regularly move through hours and hours of practice in order to master the guitar, the flute, or the violin. No one accuses these people of neurosis or low self-esteem or construes their exercises as the fruits of a dysfunctional culture.
The point is this: whenever we take something to be of great importance, we are willing to suffer in order to achieve it or participate in it.
Those who come to Lough Derg take their spiritual lives with utter seriousness, and that is precisely why they are willing to endure hardship—even imposing it on themselves—in order to deepen their communion with God. They know that there are certain tendencies within their bodies and souls that are preventing the achievement of full friendship with God and therefore they seek, quite sensibly, to discipline themselves.
John Henry Newman commented that the ascetical principle is basic to a healthy Christianity. He meant that Christians, at their best, understand that our sinful nature has to be chastised, disciplined, and rightly ordered. When the ascetical instinct disappears (as it has in much of Western Christianity), the spiritual life rapidly becomes superficial and attenuated, devolving into an easy “I’m okay and you’re okay” attitude.
The whole point of the Christian life is to find joy, but the attainment of true joy comes, in a sinful world, at the cost of some suffering. That’s why I, for one, am glad that a place like Lough Derg exists.
Fr Robert Barron
Hoc,
I’m not theologian enough to answer your comment correctly. I hope somebody out there is and will definitively answer this question for us.
My ponderings – note ponderings not statements:
1. Your point about no original sin is obviously valid and I’m sure would play a role in that He had the original, as opposed to the fallen human nature. Yet so did Adam and Eve and they both succombed to temptation – it seems that even original human nature is subject to temptation?
2. Where is the virtue in not sinning if one is not capable of sinning?
3. Why would Jesus have submitted to 40 days of temptation (without inverted commas), if he could not truly be tempted? What would be the point of the excercise? What could the devil hope to achieve by his efforts?
4. Why did He need resusitation by the Angels? Was He just hungry and thirsty?
5. Why does the Faith say he was TRULY man, if He was in fact, in His humanity, via the hypostatic union, very different from us? Not being able to be tempted would be a major difference from us?
6. I have never heard the distinction between “external” and “internal” temptation before. I am always tempted, via my senses, in my mind. How do I exactly get “externally” tempted?
7. He cried, He feared, He celebrated, He sweated, He loved, He praised, He condemned, He got hungry and thirsty, He got enraged – He sounds to be just like us?
P.S. I would think that you are correct in saying that He COULD NOT sin because He is God and God obviously cannot sin against Himself. I do not however, see why He could not feel, or experience temptation as we do.
I put the search term ‘two natures’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912): From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes. The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His in so far as they were becoming to the grace of union, in so far as they were not out of order. St. Augustine well argues: “Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really and truly a human body and a human soul” (De Civ. Dei, XIV, ix, 3). We find that he was subject to anger against the blindness of heart of sinners (Mark, iii, 5); to fear (Mark, xiv, 33); to sadness (Matt., xxvi, 37): to the sensible affections of hope, of desire, and of joy. These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ…[however] those likes and dislikes that are not under full and absolute control of right reason and strong will-power—could not, as a matter of course, have been in Christ. He could not have been tempted by such likes and dislikes to sin.”
P.P.S. The more one thinks about it, the deeper it gets. Did the devil know Jesus was God at that stage in the wilderness? I think he must not have known that yet. If the devil had known He was God, there would be no point in “tempting” Him. The devil knows God cannot sin against Himself, i.e. separate Himself from Himself. On the other hand, the devil would have heard the voice of the Father saying from heaven, “This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.” So did the devil think Jesus was just a human “son” of God and therefore that he could tempt Him? We seriously need some guidance from a Catholic theologian on this matter.
(search engines are great for the non-theologian) In the Summa: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): “Christ was known to the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of eternal life, but as the cause of certain temporal effects,” from which they formed a certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of God. But since they also observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they did not know for certain that He was the Son of God: wherefore (the devil) wished to tempt Him. This is implied by the words of Mt. 4:2,3, saying that, after “He was hungry, the tempter” came “to Him,” because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii), “Had not Christ’s weakness in hungering betrayed His human nature, the devil would not have dared to tempt Him.” Moreover, this appears from the very manner of the temptation, when he said: “If Thou be the Son of God.” Which words Ambrose explains as follows (In Luc. iv): “What means this way of addressing Him, save that, though he knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the flesh?”
Aquinas, Saint Thomas (2012-03-28). The Summa Theologica: Complete Edition. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The above found in the ‘Third part, Q. 41 “Of Christ’s Temptation”.
Thanks Salvemur! OK, now we have:
1. “The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes.” – OK got that!
2.”The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His IN SO FAR AS they were becoming to the grace of union, IN SO FAR AS THEY WERE NOT OUT OF ORDER.”
Now I start getting confused, because any emotion of temptation against any breech of any of the 10 Commandments would classify as being OUT OF ORDER; therefore Hoc is correct – Jesus was not subject to temptation as we know it. This is definitely stating that His humanity was similar, but not identical to ours.
3. “St. Augustine well argues: “Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really and truly a human body and a human soul” OK, but then His humanity was similar, but not identical to ours.
4. “These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ” As they are in us.
5. “[however] those likes and dislikes that are NOT UNDER FULL AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF RIGHT REASON AND STRONG WILL-POWER —could not, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, have been in Christ. He could not have been tempted by such likes and dislikes to sin.”
OK, so now I’m lost again! Which likes, (sins) – stealing, impurity, gluttony etc., are not under potential control of right reason and strong will-power? Surely ALL temptations are potentially subject to right reason and strong will-power? Are there any mortal sins to be committed which I am incapable of resisting?
“Could not as a matter of course, have been in Christ.” What does that mean?
To me this all says that Christ’s humanity was similar, but not identical to ours and that Hoc is correct – Jesus could not suffer/feel/know temptation as we do. But my sensus Catholicus still tells me that is not right. I still do not properly understand. I suppose if we want to go on with this, it’s time for the forum.
Great Salvemur. Please give me the link to “Of Christ’s Temptation.”
Dear Peter and Salvemur,
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/02/if-christ-could-not-sin-how-was-he.html
Here’s the specific page, Peter (of Christ’s Temptation): http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum492.htm
–
and here’s the main page for the Summa Theologica:
–
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm
Thanks Salvemur and Indignus. I’m gonna start reading.
The article linked seems to be summarising St Thomas’ ‘objection and responses’ in the above mentioned ‘Question’.
–
In St Andrew’s Daily Missal, the introduction to the First Sunday of Lent says that satan, by the temptation in the desert, “wished to discover whether the son of Mary was in reality the Son of God.”
E.M.,
–
With this other extract you just provided, you’re simply helping me to show people why this is such a dangerous man! SUPERFICIALLY what he says MAY sound orthodox to the unwary or not properly catechized Catholic, but he’s spewing modernist poison nonetheless. He’s NOT, I repeat NOT saying that penance and mortification are necessary for salvation but merely that, “the attainment of true joy comes, in a sinful world, at the cost of some suffering.”
So for Fr Barron, penance is all about, “the attainment of true joy.” Go figure!
Also – look closely again at the last paragraph: “The whole point of the Christian life is to find joy…” [??!!]
I thought that the “whole point” of the Christian life is to maintain oneself in the state of sanctifying grace by obeying God & His commandments and thereby save one’s soul, and if it should please God, we may find whatever joy is possible in this valley of tears, but the WHOLE POINT is NOT, “to find joy”! We may find joy in carrying out acts done for love of God (like penance), but it is NOT the final end, which is what Fr Barron is saying here.
Dear In Hoc,
I think you are correct.
And I think I must resist my inclination to ” copy and paste “, without a period of long and careful reflection.
Dear Ever Mindful,
Lough Derg was overtaken and subverted by New Ageism. Led by a priest who was in charge for a long time and clearly had some kind of occult New Agey belief system which he melded with outer Catholic aspects. When I went there in 2003 I was horrified by many things said and done there but the worst was the Blessed Sacrament (presuming it was validly consecrated) left scattered in a few pieces on top of a log on a table in a room that was not sanctified in any way and no one guarding the Blessed a Sacrament – completely exposed to abuse or even an accident with people going in and out. The priest spoke to me in a very sensual way and while putting his arm around me in an immodest way. It felt sleazy and I couldn’t wait to get away from him. I did my best to avoid him after that.
A Polish friend who was at the annual Rally for Life yesterday (I actually managed to do it but back to bed since as sicker and more pain after) is gone to Lough Derg today until Tuesday.
Lynda,
–
Wow! What you relate here is truly shocking. And this is the place of which Fr Barron states, “I don’t know any other place on earth that better exemplifies the idea and practice of purgative suffering than Lough Derg. ”
–
This man is a veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing!
I.F.,
–
Thanks for the link to that superb article from “The new theological movement.” It all makes perfect sense to me.
–
I think this sums it up rather nicely:
“Of course our Savior had free will! After all, the ability to sin does not make us more free, but less free. God cannot sin, and so he is absolutely free –his freedom is essentially greater than our freedom, in fact.
Further, the saints in heaven (together with the angels) cannot sin – for they enjoy the fullness of the beatific vision – and they are most certainly free. (cf. CCC 1045)…
The confusion comes from misrepresenting the true meaning of freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose, but the choice to sin is actually a lessening of choice. Evil is not a positive reality, but is a deficiency, a tendency toward non-being. Thus, the sinfulness of an action is that action’s tendency toward non-existence and non-being. Further, the creature’s “ability” to sin is an expression of its tendency toward non-being…”
–
I thought this excellent comment from “A Sinner” sheds some light into the question too:
“It might help to remember that “temptation” just means “testing.” Jesus’s will was certainly tested by the world and the devil. It was tested and found utterly impervious to the attempts to derail it. But testing something infallibly destined to succeed…is still testing it. If I’m testing a train’s ability to not derail in high winds, the fact that the train is too heavy and steady to ever be tipped off the tracks by wind doesn’t mean that putting it through the wind tunnel isn’t still a test, or that it didn’t still have to resist the force of the wind with the force of its own mass and inertia. That’s still a test.”
Dear In Hoc,
The train in high winds test—what a great analogy and easy to remember. Thanks!
Hoc, Salvemur, Indignus,
Thank you all very much. I get the picture. My head is spinning. The article by Fr. Ryan is great and so too are the comments, questions and answers. They take a lot of reading, but well worth the effort. Some extremely interesting points. A great pity this blog is no more. St. Thomas, of course, says it all. I have learned a lot because of one little comment.
P.S. I also got the point about external temptation coming from without and internal temptation arising from within due to previous sin.
With reference to trains….
“People Get Ready”
People get ready
There’s a train a-coming
You don’t need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear diesels humming
You don’t need no ticket
You just thank the Lord
Yeah yeah yeah
People get ready
For the train to Jordan
Picking up passengers
From coast to coast
Faith is the key
Open the doors and board them
There’s room for all
Among the loved and lost
Now there ain’t no room
For the hopeless sinner
Who’s hard on mankind
Just to save his own
Have pity on those
Whose chances are thinner
Cause there’s no hiding place
From the Kingdom’s Throne
Eva Cassidy
And speaking of trains…
“Spanish Train”
There’s a Spanish train that runs between
Guadalquivir and old Saville,
And at dead of night the whistle blows,
and people hear she’s running still…
And then they hush their children back to sleep,
Lock the doors, upstairs they creep,
For it is said that the souls of the dead
Fill that train ten thousand deep!!
Well a railwayman lay dying with his people by his side,
His family were crying, knelt in prayer before he died,
But above his bed just a-waiting for the dead,
Was the Devil with a twinkle in his eye,
“Well God’s not around and look what I’ve found,
this one’s mine!!”
Just then the Lord himself appeared in a blinding flash of light,
And shouted at the Devil, “Get thee hence to endless night!!”
But the Devil just grinned and said “I may have sinned,
But there’s no need to push me around,
I got him first so you can do your worst,
He’s going underground!!”
“But I think I’ll give you one more chance”
said the Devil with a smile,
“So throw away that stupid lance,
It’s really not your style”,
“Joker is the name, Poker is the game,
we’ll play right here on this bed,
And then we’ll bet for the biggest stakes yet,
the souls of the dead!!”
And I said “Look out, Lord, He’s going to win,
The sun is down and the night is riding in,
That train is dead on time, many souls are on the line,
Oh Lord, He’s going to win!..”
Well the railwayman he cut the cards
And he dealt them each a hand of five,
And for the Lord he was praying hard
Or that train he’d have to drive…
Well the Devil he had three aces and a king,
And the Lord, he was running for a straight,
He had the queen and the knave and nine and ten of spades,
All he needed was the eight…
And then the Lord he called for one more card,
But he drew the diamond eight,
And the Devil said to the son of God,
“I believe you’ve got it straight,
So deal me one for the time has come
To see who’ll be the king of this place,
But as he spoke, from beneath his cloak,
He slipped another ace…
Ten thousand souls was the opening bid,
And it soon went up to fifty-nine,
But the Lord didn’t see what the Devil did,
And he said “that suits me fine”,
“I’ll raise you high to a hundred and five,
And forever put an end to your sins”,
But the Devil let out a mighty shout, “My hand wins!!”
And I said “Lord, oh Lord, you let him win,
The sun is down and the night is riding in,
That train is dead on time, many souls are on the line,
Oh Lord, don’t let him win…”
Well that Spanish train still runs between,
Guadalquivir and old Saville,
And at dead of night the whistle blows,
And people fear she’s running still…
And far away in some recess
The Lord and the Devil are now playing chess,
The Devil still cheats and wins more souls,
And as for the Lord, well, he’s just doing his best…
And I said “Lord, oh Lord, you’ve got to win,
The sun is down and the night is riding in,
That train is still on time, oh my soul is on the line,
Oh Lord, you’ve got to win…”
Chris De Burgh
No, Jesus was not tempted because as a perfect man there was no area of life (or weakness) in which to tempt Him. Same with Our Blessed Mother. She was not tempted to sin – she was protected because God knew beforehand that she would never yield.
Yes, great comments and lots to learn…also Jesus was not tempted for 40 days. He fasted for 40 days, then was tempted as said above.
Dear Barbara and all–re: your comment above that the 40 days of fasting came before the temptations:
Even though Luke’s account is somewhat vague, saying only that Jesus was in the desert 40 days AND was tempted; and the accounts in Matthew and Luke each begin with the general statement: “Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil”, it appears you are right, because Matthew and Luke both go on with nearly identical words, to recount that
— “when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. And the tempter coming said to him said..etc.”
__
There is also an inspiring footnote in the Haydoc commentary on this passage. Speaking of Our Lord it says:
“By this conduct He teaches all that were to be in future times called to His ministry, how they are to retire into solitude, in order to converse with God in prayer,and draw down the blessing of heaven upon themselves and their undertaking. What treasures of Grace might we expect, if, as often as we receive any of the Sacraments, we were to retire within ourselves, and shut out for a time, the world and its cares. Then we should come prepared to withstand temptation, and should experience the Divine assistance in every difficulty through life. The life of man is a warfare on earth. It was not given us, says St. Hilary, to spend it in indolence, but to wage a continual war against our spiritual enemies. In the greatest sanctity there are often the greatest and most incessant trials; for Satan wishes nothing so much as the fall of the Saints. “
Dear Peter,
Glad to help. Yes, it’s a shame Father Ryan’s parish duties leave him no time to blog. But he has pledged to leave the site up indefinitely along with the archives of posts from past years–a small treasury to explore.
We must remember to keep praying for all priests.
🙂 🙂
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces, Perhaps, orthodoxy reigns there once again. I know many orthodox Catholics make the pilgrimage.
Satan attempted to tempt Our Lord.
Hoc,
“Evil is not a positive reality, but is a deficiency, a tendency toward non-being. Thus, the sinfulness of an action is that action’s tendency toward non-existence and non-being. Further, the creature’s “ability” to sin is an expression of its tendency toward non-being…”
Did you see Fr. Ryan’s very interesting extension of this reasoning? :
Father Ryan Erlenbush said…
Satan is not pure evil, else he would not exist. Rather, there is some good in him — and in this sense he still participates in God.
Satan and God are not polar opposites … Satan in no way is comparable to God, as an evil counter-god.
Rather, he is a mere creature, who participates in God’s goodness … but does not participate in the supernatural goodness of salvation.”
God HAVE MERCY on America!!!
“Satan is not pure evil, else he would not exist. Rather, there is some good [???] in him — and in this sense he still participates in God [??].”
–
That seems really “dodgy” (as the Brits say) to me.
I’m no theologian, but unless someone more learned than myself can expound on the above thought, lest I become more confused in my knowledge of the Catholic faith, I’ll say I definitely have personal reservations about the quote, especially that there is “some good in him.”
–
If Satan is not “pure” evil, how should we describe him, as 99% evil, with 1% of goodness? I don’t doubt for a second that this is not what Fr Ryan meant, but the explanation itself is unsatisfactory (to me at least), and (it seems to me) could confuse non-learned souls (such as myself).
–
Maybe a reader of this blog (hopefully a priest) well learned in theology would care to clarify this issue for us? 🙂
IHSV, as a rank and file Catholic without theological training, I too share your reservations with the statement that “Satan is not pure evil.” But, speaking merely speculatively and philosophically, perhaps angelic beings share a different order of being than humans, since it is more palatable to believe that, “no man is pure evil.” And, again, speculatively speaking, when a man dies and is subject to final judgment then is transformed to that other order of being similar to the angels. In other words, instead of “pure evil”, a phrase which seems somewhat oxymoronic and self-contradictory in itself, we should think of “absolute evil”. “Absolute” being related to the idea of being “cast off” or “set loose”, and that too presupposing a ‘place’ from which one is “cast off” or “set loose”.
Where are angelic doctors when you need one?
Hmm. When I saw ‘newtheological movement’ for the blogspot, I thought, ‘hmmm’. The actual article draws on some of St Thomas’ ideas but clearly you see where the Ryan’s treasure is stored up in his frank comments to his readers. What part of satan being a ‘murderer and a liar from the beginning’ denotes ‘some good’? satan is ‘not divided against himself’ i.e. there is no good in the devil.
–
The antichrist is a tool of satan: “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity.” 2 Thess 2:9 – what part does Ryan think ‘all seduction of iniquity’ bespeaks some internal good?
Cannot find a single word in the Summa suggesting anything other than satan is what Our Lord says he is, ‘a liar and a murderer – from the beginning.’
St Thomas concludes: “as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness…the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation..(St Jerome) says (Contra Jovin. ii, 2) that “as God is the perfecter of good, so is the devil the perfecter of evil”…”
Dear johnjobilbee,
This is semantics. You’re really in agreement, because the Salvation offered by God as well as all the teachings on the Eucharist and everything else that comes through His Church, are part of the Truth it teaches. 🙂 🙂
Dear In Hoc,
Thanks for the correction. You’re right.
Another essay we had read on the captivity quoted Paul regarding the Pharaoh and applied it to Nebuchodosor’s situation 🙂 🙂
Dear Peter Lamb,
Thanks for the nice thoughts, but it’s hasn’t really been a “happy” holiday for us since 1973 when abortion became officially legal here, and it’s gone downhill rapidly since. We do appreciate still having the freedom to voice our protests, but we’re not sure now how long even that will last, now.
It’s a good day to write to our Congressmen demanding they over-ride the Supreme Court to re-establish the additional liberties the States have just lost in favor of the will of 9 justices who are using the Court to legislate false religion.
Hoc,
LOL! So we’re back where we started – in need of a theologian!
We have both made it clear, we are out of our depth.
If Fr. Ryan is incorrect, then his statement that “Evil is not a positive reality, but is a deficiency, a tendency toward non-being. Thus, the sinfulness of an action is that action’s tendency toward non-existence and non-being.” must be incorrect also. That satan is only x% evil must be what he meant, otherwise according to his definition of sin, satan could not exist, if he was 100% evil.
Alarico,
Note this question and answer regarding Angels:
Question: “Further, the saints in heaven (together with the angels) cannot sin – for they enjoy the fullness of the beatific vision – and they are most certainly free. (cf. CCC 1045)”
Does this mean that Satan and all the fallen angels weren’t in Heaven and didn’t enjoy the fullness of the beatific vision? If they enjoyed the fullness of the beatific vision prior to their fall and could not sin, how did they manage to get cast out of Heaven?
Answer: “That is correct … Satan (and all the angels) did not start off with the beatific vision — even though they were created in the state of grace, they had a moment to choose before being given the beatific vision.
Thus, Satan was cast of “heaven”, meaning of the “upper parts”, not meaning heaven proper — after all, many times when Scripture says “heaven” or the “heavens”, we are to understand something other than heaven proper (e.g. the birds are in the “heavens”).”
This seems in line with Salvemur’s quote from St. Thomas:
“St Thomas concludes: “as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness…the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation..”
One lives and learns! I thought that lucifer became jealous of God, the bad angels had a battle in heaven, St. Michael and the good Angels won and then the evil ones were cast out. Upon reflection that might be correct, but without my assumed necessity for time. In the spiritual dimension, the laws of this physical dimension don’t pertain. So lucifer could be created the most beautiful angel, rebel, have a battle and be outcast in a jiffy, i.e. 1/100th of a second, or less, because there time does not exist. The whole process being virtually instantaneous in time.
Salvemur quotes St. Jerome:
“as God is the perfecter of good, so is the devil the perfecter of evil” Well perfect evil cannot contain any good, i.e. 0% good.
When I first read Fr. Ryan’s article, I thought he might mean that as I am separated from God, i.e. “cast off” as Alarico says, by committing a mortal sin of impurity, there is still some good left in me, in that I would still help an old lady across the street. But that approach would not align with Salvemur’s quotes. As Alarico says: Where are angelic doctors when you need one?
Dear In Hoc, Salvemur, Peter Lamb and all,
We’re still no theologians, but we pretty sure we understand why Fr. Ryan is right in writing that Satan is not pure evil, and it is because he’s going by the definition of evil according to Aquinas (a lack of some perfection in something that has existence) but also because, according to Aquinas,
–since God causes the existence of all things He creates, even an evil thing is still first, a thing created by God, i.e. something with existence. And that existence itself, which God gave it, is good. So as long as a thing exists, it has some “good”–it’s existence. (And God does not annihilate souls contrary to some popular false beliefs). So we can still describe everything Satan does as evil, (including being a liar and deceiver from the beginning which are things he misused free will to choose)while not being able to describe him as pure evil. (technically/philosophically speaking)
🙂 🙂
Dear Peter Lamb and all,
Please see our reply above, to the discussion about Satan not being “pure” evil.
Remember the Devil is a fallen angel. He was created by God but went against God and his angelic nature which is to give glory to God.
A (sad for America, good for Africa) –contrast—-reported by Gloria t.v. today:
Presdent Obama (whose father was Kenyan), called homosex pseudo-marriage a “victory for America”.
__
In Kenya Christian MPs will join a big March for the Family in a protest against the vice of homosexuality. The Catholic Justice and Peace Commission will also participate. The March will be headed by Nairobi’s Auxiliary Bishop David Kamau.
Dear Lynda,
What you say here is true. That seems to be exactly why Thomas Aquinas differentiates philosophically between the “good” in his continued existence, and the evil that he does.
Thank you Indignus (and St. Thomas)!
Now I think we have gotten to the bottom of it:
lucifer is absolute evil in his will, of his own free choice, and consequently in his thoughts, words and deeds, but still participates in the Goodness of God by his existence. QED.
Well done all!
Dear Peter Lamb,
We don’t have enough theology to know if your above statement is true or false. We shy away from the word “absolute” when it comes to philosophy, because there are so many definitions and subtle nuances of meaning. We do remember reading something about the will being attracted by good, and that “perceived” good plays into our choices in doing good or evil.
–How about doing us a favor and studying Aquinas for a decade or so more. before try to write a “Summa -Summary for dummies” ? 🙂 🙂
Indignus,
See Alarico’s motivation for “absolute”. Nobody is trying to write a summa – just trying to learn and understand our Faith better. Why don’t you leave your customary pontificating to Francis? Are your preferences in philosophical pedagogy based on formal training?
Could you let me know your source/what doc you are referring to published in 1984 (Rev Code of Canon Law published 1983 according to Wikipedia)? Notes cite 1992 publishing date & Wikipedia states JP2 formed commission in 1986 as part of 20 year VCII anniversary decision by the bishops.
Worst thing to note about Robert Barron is that he is the president & rector of Mundelein Seminary: “On May 11, 2012, Fr. Barron was appointed Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary/University of Saint Mary of the Lake by Francis Cardinal George, a role he assumed in July 2012” (source wikipedia bio)
http://www.usml.edu/mundelein-seminary
Can’t help but feel personally this 5/19/11 quote of his had something (major) to do w/his appt: “After the accusation against Cardinal Bernardin proved to be phony” (note: he doesn’t cite the ‘proof’)
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/05/19/its_a_great_time_to_be_a_priest_106254.html
Dear Peter Lamb,
Whoa boy! Sorry if you got aggravated unnecessarily. Looks like we shoulda put a LOL in that last one so you could tell we were just kidding.
“customary pontificating”, huh? Have to work on getting rid of that…. 🙂 🙂
Awesome responses. You guys are heavyweights and I concede I’m much out of my league here. But thank you all. Sorry IG, a decade or so will not do when contemplating the mysteries of our faith; only the beatific vision will ultimately suffice for us. I much appreciate all of your charity, especially Peter Lamb in this instance…and, of course, Louie’s perennial indulgence.
Now to contemplate Luke 10:18: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.”
Sorry Indignus,
My IT son-in-law is always telling me that one can’t properly judge nuance in this medium. A little bit of pontificating never hurt anyone and we all do it sometime – ask my kids. If we weren’t pals, I would not still be keeping your seats warm at St. Gertrude’s. 🙂 🙂
OK Lamb, you earned this 🙂 🙂
–A person sent ten different puns to friends, hoping at least one would make them laugh. Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.
–He wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit him.
–He stayed up all night to see where the sun went.
Then it dawned on him.
–NASA put a bunch of Holsteins into low earth orbit. They called it the herd shot ’round the world.
–In democracy it’s your vote that counts;
in feudalism it’s your count that votes.
–Know what you get if you cross a bullet and a tree with no leaves? A cartridge in a bare tree.
–A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France? Linoleum Blownapart.
–Two hydrogen atoms walked into a bar. One said, “I’ve lost my electron.” The other said, “Are you sure?” The first replied, “I’m positive!”
–A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. The manager came
out of the office and asked them to disperse because he couldn’t stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer.”
–Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
–A boiled egg in the morning is hard to beat.
(laughing yet?) 🙂 🙂
Going back to Fr Barron, for him, “St” JP 2 seems to be the ultimate, or highest, source of confirmation for his universalist salvation heresy. This is from a response at the top in the video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4 ), expounding his heresy
“My position is identical to St. John Paul II’s: “we are not granted the knowledge of which human beings, or if any human beings, are involved in eternal damnation.” ”
It would be interesting to know the source of this alleged statement by the Polish pontiff, but at any rate, the mere fact that he feels confident in supporting his errors through the statement of a putative “saint” should be troubling enough…
Yes, and John the Baptist spend his youth and young manhood fasting in the desert, also like Our Lord, before his public ministry – just so he could withstand what was coming.
I think we can write Fr. Barron off.
Dear Barbara,
Before you ” write off ” Fr Barron, enjoy his reflections on St Thomas Aquinas..
“At a time when religious conversation far too often devolves into shouting matches and ad hominem attacks, Thomas calls us back to reasoned discourse. ”
ST THOMAS AQUINAS-Fr Robert Barron
I was in Rome the past couple of weeks, giving lectures at the North American College, the great seminary for Americans, Canadians, and Australians at the Vatican. One morning, toward the end of my stay, I met with my good friend, Fr. Paul Murray, the Irish Dominican spiritual writer, and we headed to the Vatican Library, where we met a colleague of Fr. Paul’s who works there in the manuscript section.
Fr. Murray had secured permission to view some “autographs” of St. Thomas Aquinas, that is to say, some writings in Thomas’s own hand. I was approaching this appointment with enormous enthusiasm, for Thomas, the church’s greatest theologian, is my hero, my patron saint, the person who, more than any other, had directed me toward the priesthood, and the scholar whose work I have been studying and writing about most of my adult life. I was not disappointed.
Fr. Paul’s friend invited us to sit down at a long table and told us that she would return in a few minutes with the sample of Aquinas’s writing. I was expecting, frankly, one page that we would be permitted to view, perhaps, under glass. But she returned with a dossier filled with eighty pages of text! They were vellum, which is to say, treated sheepskin, expensive enough and rather hard to come by in the Middle Ages; and they were covered in Aquinas’s famously cramped, illegible script.
We were able to see these pages directly, to handle them, to hover over them, just as Aquinas must have, nearly eight centuries ago. The texts we were looking at were from theSumma contra gentiles, the first and lesser of Thomas’s two great Summae or summaries of Christian doctrine, which he wrote in Paris in the late 1250’s, when he was a relatively young man (35 or so). Though both Fr. Paul and I had been studying Thomas’s Latin texts for years, neither one of us could make out one word. This is because Thomas wrote in a kind of shorthand, filled with symbols, squiggles, odd connectives. They say that only his secretary, a man named Reginald of Piperno, could read Thomas’s writing fluently. And indeed, in the margins of certain of these pages, another hand, far more legible, could be seen; it was undoubtedly that of the faithful Reginald.
The curator pointed out a wonderful detail. She showed us a particular page with a rather large hole in the middle. “You can tell,” she said, “that that defect was already there in the Middle Ages.” We wondered how she knew that, and she said, “Look at the writing.” And sure enough, there was the illegible hand writing suddenly taking a detour up and around the hole. On another page, we saw a fine little sketch of the head of a horse. Did Thomas draw it? Was it from a later time and another hand? There is no way to tell, but it certainly proves that he doodler’s art is a venerable one.
My favorite page was one that was covered with Thomas’s writing, practically top to bottom and side to side, all the margins filled in with new arguments or modifications or glosses. And at the foot of this page were the numbers 1,2,3, and 4, each with an uneven line stretching from it to a particular piece of text – probably four objections to which Thomas was responding. What these medieval writings communicated to me was the dense reality of Thomas Aquinas, that very particular 13th century scholar, scribbling on these sheets of vellum, as he thought and wrote his way to greater clarity about the things of God. The sheer concentration and effort that this required were inscribed in the still very black ink of those pages.
I have seen many beautiful things in Rome – the Pantheon, St. Peter’s Dome, Santa Maria in Trastevere, the Caravaggios in San Luigi dei Francesi, Raphael’s “School of Athens” – but I can honestly say that those pages of Aquinas were the most striking, memorable, and yes, beautiful things I have ever seen in the Eternal City. They reminded me of how much Thomas Aquinas has meant to me personally, but also how much he continues to mean for the entire church.
At a time when religious conversation far too often devolves into shouting matches and ad hominem attacks, Thomas calls us back to reasoned discourse. At a time when religious passions have run amok and have resulted in terrible acts of violence, Thomas calls us back to hard thinking about God. At a time when adepts of different religions often gaze at one another suspiciously, the Thomas who happily dialogued with pagan philosophers, Jewish rabbis, Muslim sages, and Christian heretics, calls us back to an attitude of broad-minded respect. I think actually that the Church’s turning away from Aquinas in the years following Vatican II was a dreadful mistake. We lost something of massive importance when we set aside his balance, his deep intelligence, and his sanity. Happily, there is a rather impressive Thomas Aquinas revival going on throughout the church, as a number of gifted younger scholars (and some older ones too) are turning back with enthusiasm to his works. May their tribe increase.
Fr Robert Barron
Dear EM,
A few months ago, Cardinal Walter Kasper defended his false Mercy ideas against Fr. Daniel Moloney’s criticisms, citing the “Summa” and saying, ” My main support on this point is no one less than Thomas Aquinas.”
__
Then he claimed Father Moloney was wrong because “he insists that dogmatic theology has to be about the eternal truths”, and ( C.Kasper) then went on about the need to explain truths in “time and history” because they have “dialogical character”. [We’re pretty sure these ideas are the ideas Cardinal Burke and others refer to as attempts to separate Dogma from practice, which cannot be done without destroying the Dogma].
___
We assume you would not want people to be led to trust and follow Cardinal Kasper into those errors, and could see the potential harm in making him more trusted and attractive to people, for example by pointing out the fact that he greatly admires and has studied Thomas Aquinas–, without ALSO warning them of his harmful beliefs. This is because the poison he currently promotes, overrides whatever else he may have said or done in his life, that was good.
__
The fact that you have been doing so much promoting of Fr. Barron’s writings and ideas here, gives us the strong impression you approve of all he teaches, with no such reservations about any of his beliefs.
__
If that is the case, and you disagree with Louie’s current post, we hope you will re-consider the harm being done to so many souls, by his promotion of the idea that Hell is likely to be avoided by “many” or “most” people.
__
It’s well-known that multitudes freely admit to living in what the Commandments and the Catholic Church teach is a state of mortal sin. This idea of likely salvation for the many, harms the necessary fear of God’s justice and contradicts what Scripture and Our Lord have taught about “many” taking the wide road that leads to hell; and the central message of Our Lady of Fatima-with its dire warnings that “many souls are lost”.
__
A priest named Father Lombardi, founder of the “Movement for a Better World”, visited Sister Lucia on October 13, 1953, and asked her “Do you really believe that many people go to hell? I myself hope that God will save the greater number. I wrote the same thing in a book entitled, The Salvation of the Unbeliever.”
Sister answered: “Many are those who are lost.”
Father insisted: “Certainly the world is a cesspool of vices… But there is always hope of salvation.”
and Sister again ansered: “No, Father, many are lost.”
Louie, brilliant piece. I don’t know too many people writing this stuff (in the English language) about true, uncompromising Catholic dogma. I could probably count them on a few fingers. Keep up the great work. We need this in the face of seemingly pervasive modernism and liberalism all about us working to destroy our souls. God Bless.
Dear I F,
As always I am most grateful for your reflections, and can appreciate the need to avoid being deceived by well articulated sophistry…
Most people seem to think that Fr Barron teaches that he KNOWS hell is empty, whereas he HOPES the numbers are few…
If we could picture fifty of our dearest friends and relatives…could we differentiate between A) a HOPE that none of those fifty will enter hell, as opposed to B) a KNOWLEDGE that none will enter hell ?
Fr Barron has contrasted the differing views over the centuries, and offers his opinion, which is a HOPE, even a reasonable HOPE , but not a CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE…
Like the helper who releases the clay pigeons into the air, permit me to duck down now and seek shelter before the gunshots blast out….
WHAT FATHER BARRON ACTUALLY SAID….
Foreword to Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?
It is curious indeed that a text so often characterized as advocating an easy “universalism” in regard to salvation, actually commences with a clear statement that all human beings stand under the divine judgment. Whatever else Hans Urs von Balthasar says in this book, the one thing he is quite clearly not saying is that we have certain knowledge that all people will be saved. But he will insist—in fact, it is the gravamen of his argument—that we are permitted to hope that Hell might be empty of human beings. That this proposition is controversial was evident from the moment this book was published and it remains evident today. Take even the most cursory look at the extensive and vehement internet conversation surrounding this issue if you doubt me. In the opening pages of his book, Balthasar himself mentions a number of theologians and journalists who dismissed his speculations out of hand, some even questioning his orthodoxy. In very recent times, certain theologians have opined that Balthasar’s “universalism” has contributed mightily to the decline of the Church’s influence in the West and to an attenuating of its missionary impulse. In the more popular forums of discussion, one hears that Balthasar’s point of view runs counter to the explicit teaching of Jesus and to the witness of many of the saints.
How does Balthasar (and how can his advocates today) respond to these criticisms? His first move is to remind defenders of a crowded Hell that the Biblical witness in regard to this issue is, to say the least, complex. Alongside of the many references to Hell and those who will suffer therein, there are at least as many Biblical evocations of universal salvation. To cite simply a few of the best known: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (Jn. 12:32); and “He has made known to us the mystery of his will…as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:9-10); and of course, “This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4). That these passages rule out the certitude that many are in Hell and justify at least the hope that Hell might be empty strikes Balthasar as self-evident.
The testimony of the Fathers is, he convincingly shows, just as multivalent and textured. To be sure, Augustine and many of his colleagues in the Christian West advocated the harsh view that the vast majority of the human race—the massa damnata—will find their way to Hell. However, this teaching was countered by many weighty fathers in the Christian East, including Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and especially Origen of Alexandria, all of whom taught universal salvation, or something quite close to it. It is, therefore, simply not the case that a clear patristic consensus exists around the issue of a crowded Hell. Furthermore, practically all of the Fathers, both East and West, reject the view that Hell—empty or not—is created by God. Rather, they hold that it is brought about by sinners themselves, whose resistance to the divine love produces suffering in them. In this context, Balthasar cites C.S. Lewis, who famously argued that the door to Hell is locked from the inside by those who, from the bottom of their hearts, want to be left alone.
I believe it is fair to say that the recovery of these elements, brought about through the nouvelle theologie’s thorough-going resourcement, both biblical and patristic, contributed to a development of doctrine in regard to the issue under consideration. Without ever embracing Origen’s apokatastasis panton, Balthasar affected a sort of Origenizing of Augustine, a nuancing of the massa damnata theology which, by the early twentieth century was found increasingly incredible and indeed un-Scriptural. This development has been rather clearly confirmed in the magisterial teaching of the Church, especially in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium and Pope Benedict’s encyclical Spe Salvi, both of which offer interpretations of our question that are infinitely more generous than anything in the Augustinian tradition.
The most striking and original contribution that Balthasar makes to this discussion, I believe, is his critique of Thomas Aquinas’s view—shared widely in the classical tradition—that part of the joy of heaven is to witness the sufferings of the damned. To this he contrasts the approach of a surprising number of saints and mystics, who declared a willingness to suffer on behalf of a denizen of Hell or even, at the limit, to take his or her place as a gesture of love. The prototype here is St. Paul himself, who says in the ninth chapter of Romans: “I wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). The possibility that his fellow Jews might be separated from Christ does not awaken in Paul anything even vaguely resembling gloating self-satisfaction, or even delight in the divine justice, but rather a mercy that conduces to utter self-sacrifice.
Balthasar draws our attention to a number of female mystics who share this Pauline attitude: Mechtild of Hackeborn, Angela Foligno, Therese of Lisieux, and Catherine of Siena. A conversation between Christ and Catherine is especially illuminating. Fired by the hope that all people might be saved, Catherine said to Jesus, “How could I ever reconcile myself, Lord, to the prospect that a single one of those whom you have created in your image and likeness should become lost and slip from your hands?” The answer that the Lord gives her, confided to her spiritual director Raymond of Capua, is breathtaking: “Love cannot be contained in Hell; it would totally annihilate Hell.” In other words, the love that Catherine is exhibiting, precisely through her hope that all be saved, functions as an antidote to the poison, or according to her own metaphor, an obstacle to the entrance of Hell. She tells her Lord, “If I could remain united with you in love while, at the same time, placing myself before the entrance of Hell and blocking it off in such a way that no one could enter, that would be the greatest of joys for me.”
Stated abstractly and dispassionately—are there many or few who are saved?—the question remains finally unanswerable, and Balthasar acknowledges this. However, Christ’s own journey to the limits of godforsakenness, to which the saints just mentioned bore witness, provides ample ground for the hope that all might come to salvation. Because of God’s acrobatic display of love—the Son going all the way down to the very bottom of sin and death and then being drawn back to the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit—we may reasonably hope that even those who have wandered furthest away from God will be drawn into the dynamics of the divine life. Edith Stein—still another female saint who vibrantly envisioned the possibility of universal salvation—said that human freedom can, in principle, stand definitively athwart God’s love; but given what God has accomplished in Christ, it can be, so to speak, “outwitted.”
I should like to conclude with just a word about the implications of Balthasar’s position for mission and evangelization. As I suggested above, some hold that the lively hope for universal salvation would conduce to indifferentism: if all will be saved anyway, why bother with preaching, teaching, going on missionary journeys, etc? But this is so much nonsense. The God of the Bible delights in working through secondary causes. Therefore, the ardent witness of deeply committed evangelists, teachers, and missionaries might well be precisely the means by which God deigns to bring his people to eternal life. The hope for the salvation of all ought not to dampen the missionary spirit, but rather to stir it up.
This is why I believe that this text, much debated from the time of its publication, will prove indispensably important to the task that all of the post-conciliar Popes have placed before the Church, namely, the work of the new evangelization.
Fr Robert Barron
I would reckon it best to leave Ryan to his new theology and if one has any questions that one can’t stand no knowing the answer to, make an attempt to understand those theologians who are not infected with modernism. St Thomas disagrees on the few points with St Augustine (who himself wrote a lengthy redaction of his own erroneous ideas from earlier in his theological career). St Thomas is adament – the devil rejected grace from the first moment of his creation. He was created with full access to the Grace of his creator and he utterly rejected it. To in any way start arguing a ‘good’ in the person of unremiting evil, is….
–
That we’ve ended up spending so much space here making space for ‘satan’s goodness’ means Ryan’s work is done along with that of the new theologians.
Is Barron a ‘Caboose-conservative’? Two sermons – the second at around 23 minutes is on the ‘Caboose-conservative’. Caboose-conservatives are “just slow liberals – the last car on the freight train, but still on the same track…Beware of the tremendous power of culture…we must resist all of the temptations of culture to become liberals and pluralists. Our culture must be Catholic, which is 100% anti-liberal, 100% anti-relativist, 100% anti-subjectivist, 100% anti-pluralist and 100% anti-ecumenical…Pope Leo XIII said ‘the security of the state demands that we should be brought back to Him from whom we ought never to have departed; to Him Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, not for individuals merely, but for human society through its whole extent. Christ Our Lord, must be reinstated as the ruler of human society. It belongs to Him as do all its members. All the elements of the commonwealth, legal commands and prohibitions, popular institutions, schools, marriage, homelife, the workshop, and the palace – meaning the goverment. All must be made to come to that fountain and imbibe that life that comes from Him.”
–
The first is on Pope Saint Pius X: “when Pius XII canonized Pope Saint Pius X there was a roar of protest [from the modernists]…all of [Pius X’s labours against modernism] are sanctified – the work of a Saint…and although the modernists may take from us our churches, our Mass, our sacraments, everything we hold dear, they cannot take from us Saint Pius X. He is forever in the catelogue of saints…”
–
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-in-veritate-episode-6-saint-pius-x-and-the-miserable-modern-world/
“Pray, pray a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for may souls go to Hell, because they have no-one to make sacrifices and pray for them.”
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us
The head of the Novus Ordo wants his faithful to “to pray fervently for this intention, so that Christ can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn it — by making it part of his ‘hour’ — into a miracle. Families today need this miracle!” You heard it. Getting praying for the impure, scandalous and threatening…
–
http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/holy-father-please-explain-scandal-you.html
Dear Salvemur,
Re: your comments on the narrow thread (above) on Aquinas and Fr. Ryan:
We usually find your reasearch accurate and educational, but this time your statements and conclusions didn’t match the available evidence.
__
Due to your comments, we re-read ALL of Fr. Ryans responses to his commenters questions, and found every one of them to be perfectly in accord with Traditional Church teachings, without a hint of modernism–as well as clear, concise, and educational. Please tell us what you found in any of them that convinced you to label him a modernist, as we are baffled.
__
You said you could not find a single word in the Summa suggesting anything other than (pure?) evil regarding the devil, and then wrote: “but clearly you see where the Ryan’s treasure is stored up in his frank comments to his readers.”
__
In your latest comment on him, you seem to want to cement the modernist image writing: ” ..best to leave Ryan to his new theology…and make an attempt to understand those theologians who are not infected with modernism.” …” St Thomas is adament… To in any way start arguing a ‘good’ in the person of unremiting evil, is….”That we’ve ended up spending so much space here making space for ‘satan’s goodness’ means Ryan’s work is done along with that of the new theologians.”
==============
But you are wrong if you still think the Summa doesn’t say exactly what Father Ryan said about the goodness of existence itself, being irrevocable in every creature– despite their evildoing and whether angel or human. The devil is not a purely evil being by philosophical definitions– according to Aquinas or Augustine. These facts are AS true as is your point, that the Devils continue to do only evil, and that is the result of their initial choices being permanent because of their natures.
__
But just like Aquinas and Augustine, it is very obvious from content that Father Ryan was not implying we should in any way “sympathize” with the devil because of that. The entire question and answer session in his combox shows that. He was simply explaining the philosophical reality pertinent to the presentation he was making. The level of discourse he had going there was obviously among people well-versed in theology and philosophy, and high above and beyond anything we’ve seen online anywhere else. It was like listening in on a meeting of scholars.
__
We’ve including a link to an online Summa for you to check these facts out for yourself if you like, but in just PART I, we found three distinct areas that directly cover the pertinent comments Father Ryan and Thomas Aquinas made about the devil being FOREVER BOTH good and evil. We hope you will revise your opinion, as we think it is erroneous and damaging to a faithful priest’s reputation.
__
TREATISE ON THE ONE GOD /Question 5: Of Goodness in General/Article 1 Whether Goodness differs from being/Reply to Objection 2:
— “No being can be spoken of as evil, formally as being….”
__
TREATISE ON THE DISTINCTION OF GOOD AND EVIL /Question 48: The Distinction of things in particular/Article 4: Whether Evil corrupts the whole good
— “I answer that evil cannot wholly consume good”.
__
TREATISE ON THE ANGELS /Question 63 The Malice of the Angels with regard to sin/Article 5: Whether the Devil was wicked by his own will in the first instant of creation/Reply to Objection 3: “The Devils first sin still remains in him according to desire..” /Reply to Objection 5: “The Demons act..comes from deliberate will.. is always wicked”
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP.html#TOC03
Dear Salvemur,
We put a response to you in the main section, as this thread has gotten too thin.
Ever Mindful,
–
“Most people seem to think that Fr Barron teaches that he KNOWS hell is empty, whereas he HOPES the numbers are few…”
WRONG.
Leaving aside the ludicrous notion that there could possibly be “few” souls in hell, what he states is there is a reasonable hope hell is “EMPTY” as in ZERO souls being present there. As in not even Judas Iscariot, Caiaphas, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zhedong, Goebbels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the millions of other unspeakable evil-doers that have existed throughout history. I don’t know what kind of “heaven” Fr Barron has in mind wherein the likes of Hitler and Judas Iscariot are allegedly enjoying the beatific vision, but it’s not my view of heaven, and certainly not the Catholic heaven.
–
Fr Barron’s use of sacred scripture to prop up his universal Salvationist heresy is blasphemous and outright fraudulent. Mind you we are not dealing here with some ignoramus parish priest in some backwater town with no knowledge of latin and his only knowledge of the “Faith” being Vatican II “Catholicism”. This man knows the teaching of the Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church and other great saints. And despite this he purposefully and obstinately holds to his heresy.
Lets look at one of the citations he uses to support his heresy: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (Jn. 12:32)
This is not even a proper translation, Christ did not say ALL PEOPLE: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.” (Douay-Rheims translation), which fits in perfectly with both the greek text and the vulgate translation: ” et ego si exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad me ipsum” He saws “Omnia [all] traham [draw]” Nowhere does he state “draw all men”. St Thomas Aquinas confirms this:
“And he says, all things, and not “all men,” because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to salvation.”
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John12.htm
–
Let’s look at one of the other quotes he cites in support of his error:
“This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Of course he DESIRES that everyone is saved! But that doesn’t mean that everyone accepts the invitation! The citation could be used in support of the universal salvation heresy IF men are denied free-will, and whatever God “desires” men to do, will automatically happen, as if men were puppets controlled by God without free will. This is akin to the Jansenist heresy – take a look at the bull “Unigenitus” by Clement XI (available through papalencyclicals . net), which condemns 101 propositions of the Jansenists:
13. “When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.” (Proposition condemned)
–
There are so many references in scripture that specifically mention hell and souls therein that it would be utterly superfluous to list them here. I will just cite a terrifying description of souls being damned from the book of Revelation:
–
“And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:9-10) The beast (the Anti-Christ) and the “False prophet” are both humans, BTW.
–
Besides the sources from Tradition and Sacred Scripture, do you believe that the message of Our Lady of Fatima, who maternally and with great love warned her children of the dangers of hell and the numerous souls going there, is some sort of fairy-tale concocted through the pious imaginings of some devout shepherd children?
Louie,
–
Considering how widespread the “universal salvation” heresy propounded by Fr Barron seems to be among unwary catholics, may I suggest doing a post in the future dealing with this heresy which is causing so much harm and confusion to souls?
God Bless and keep up the good work.
I.F.,
–
Well said. This is most true: “This is because the poison he currently promotes, overrides whatever else he may have said or done in his life, that was good.”
Exactly. As I’ve stated before – one only needs a drop of poison in a beverage to make the entire drink lethal.
PS And of course, thank goodness for Fr Barron, who is there to “interpret” St Thomas Aquinas for us hapless Catholics…
🙂 🙂
Dear Ever mindful,
We’re guilty ourselves too often of this, but may we suggest in charity, that you link your long citations of Fr. Barron’s works, to allow folks to choose whether or not to read them, as they have been rather frequent on this post?
__
We understand that Fr. Barron’s “hope” that most will be saved has not been stated by him as a certainty. But from what you posted above, and other of his writings, including his critique of Ralph Martin’s book, he’s not talking simply about the virtuous “hope” we are all supposed to have for each individual soul, as we pray and sacrifice so they will turn to God, drawn by all that He provided for them united with our efforts.
__
It is instead a ongoing and very damaging presentation of arguments directly drawn from the teachings of known modernists, such as Rahner and Von Balthasar and even Pope Benedict—who each believed and taught that there IS a greater likelihood THAT MOST WILL BE SAVED, (not a shout just an emphasis) going against what Our Lord and Our Lady and the Scriptures have stated is the reality–and as Sister Lucia stated in our above post to you.
__
This open contradiction, is what is most dangerous and harmful, and whether he labels it a hope or firmly believes it is far less relevant than the fact that , he IS teaching and promoting these modernists’ ideas and thinking that backs them up, which contradicts what we know to be true.
__
–How can we claim he’s trying to teach it with authority? A good example comes right from his article which you cited above, which he ended by comparing dissent from Benedict’s viewpoint on this, to dissent about contraception from Humane Vitae! If THAT isn’t insisting it is truth that must be believed, what is?
__
He wrote:
“Obviously, there is no easy answer to the question of who or how many will be saved, but one of the most theologically accomplished popes in history, [Benedict]writing at a very high level of authority, has declared that we oughtn’t to hold that Hell is densely populated. To write this off as “remarks” that equire “clarification” [as Ralph Martin did in his book]is precisely analogous to a liberal theologian saying the same thing about Paul VI’s teaching on artificial contraception in the encyclical “Humanae Vitae.”
=========
Please research the dissenters he is quoting, to see the harm they have done to the Church. Fr. Barrons is promoting their work. That makes him as harmful as they are.
I linked in St Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the gospel of St John on my comment to Ever Mindful above, but I’m posting it again here for those who may have missed it and may be interested:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJohn.htm
Amen In Hoc,
Dear Louie,
We heartily second that motion. This belief has led more people we know to leave behind their practice of the Faith, than any other. It is also the one which gives them and the priests, nuns, and Bishops we’ve extensively spoken with, their perceived “reason” to tell the Faithful like us to basically “chill out” and not be so concerned about the toleration of sin we see all around us. Their “teachings” then reduce our credibility with others, who begin to see our efforts not as charity-driven but as busy-body interfering that is actually condemned by Our Lord as if based on sinful “judging” .It’s a snowball effect on the culture that we now see culminating in the widespread acceptance of the minority sinful views as “law” of the land.
Dear Em and In Hoc,
We had many of the same thought when reading Fr. Barron’s piece. Thanks, In Hoc.
Dear Indignus,
LOL! Very punny! 🙂 🙂
And dare I say it, if neither Benedict, nor Paul VI were true Popes and both were modernist heretics, then what they say about anything is irrevelent.
The idea that we can have a reasonable hope that all or almost all are saved is absurd, even apart from direct Revelation. Look to one’s own experience – how many people who have rejected the Faith or the moral law, repent and convert before death? Many do not – they die as they’ve lived, rejecting the Deposit of Faith and in a state of mortal sin. Further, how helpful would such an idea be for the salvation of the souls to whom it is taught as being somehow extrapolatable from the Deposit of Faith? I would contend that it would tend to be most unhelpful to souls with respect to doing what God has told us in necessary for salvation.
As in its unjust Roe v. Wade decision, which imposed legal procured abortion on America, so too now, and abusing its authority, the U.S. Supreme Court has consummated a collective sin of the nation, which will draw God’s justice and chastisement upon us, because the sins of nations are punished in this life, not in the next. In His justice, God rewards or chastises nations in this life for the good or evil they do, because unlike individuals they are incapable of being rewarded or chastised in eternity.
This truth makes us fear for the nation. We draw comfort, however, that principled and loyal resistance to this sin does not pass unnoticed by God. The resistance that needs to occur is precisely the means of averting Divine wrath and drawing instead His mercy on America.
If Christians in America fight in this way they have every reason to confide in God’s assistance, for as Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the first TFP in Brazil, reminded us:
“Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat” (“I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” – Phil. 4:13).
When men resolve to cooperate with the grace of God, the marvels of history are worked: the conversion of the Roman Empire; the formation of the Middle Ages; the reconquest of Spain, starting from Covadonga; all the events that result from the great resurrections of soul of which peoples are also capable. These resurrections are invincible, because nothing can defeat a people that is virtuous and truly loves God. May the loving and faithful resistance of millions of Americans to this unjust law attract God’s mercy and blessings on the nation, and may the prayers of Mary Most Holy bring special graces that change hearts and minds, thus making America truly and enduringly “one nation under God. ”http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/tfp-statements/supreme-court-provokes-god-with-same-sex-marriage.html?utm_source=sm-tfpsa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0322&utm_campaign=tfpsa_newsletter
Dear In Hoc,
Thank you for your explanations and valid points well made…in brief…Our Lady is the one who I will be guided by…although I lose my way in the arguments and counter arguments trying to understand different theologians, she is the one beneath whose mantle I will take my rest
Dear I F,
Thank you for your charitable advice ( regarding avoiding long postings others might prefer not to read) … Well noted
I always value your observations and points of view, and, please God, will deepen my understanding.
If that be the case, I am sure you will want to take heed of Our Lady of Fatima’s maternal warnings about many souls going to hell…
Exactly. Not only is it one big fat lie, but it induces in souls a state of apathy and indifference towards sin, leading more and more of them into the wide and broad way that leads to perdition.
Indignus…I rejected Ryan’s statement that satan had some good in him. Before that I commented that the article ‘seemed to be restating’ St Thomas. That his comment then goes ahead and counters St Thomas is why it is best to leave ‘new theologians’ to themselves, since they want to have their ‘Aquinas’ and eat him too. If you haven’t heard of ‘neo-theology – this might help – http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/newtheo.htm — it’s by John Vennari so you don’t have put on your anti-sede tinfoil-cap).
–
The summa never even mentions ‘pure evil’. It addresses the idea of a ‘supreme evil’ which it rejects since that is a gnostic concept that denies one Deity, and posits an opposite and equally powerful evil ‘deity’.
–
I can find nowhere that the summa states, suggests or vaguely implies that the creature satan has good in him (I’m not sure what the quotes you supplied are pertaining to, but it is not a ‘good’ inherent in the creature ‘satan’. (as to “evil cannot wholly consume good”, that is because evil is not what the gnostic’s thought it was – but this in no way suggests that evil is always mixed with good – an idea which denies Holy Writ). Christ and belial have no concord, no admixture.
–
Ryan’s words are present tense, “Satan is not pure evil, else he would not exist. Rather, there is some good in him.” (Based on the summa, Ryan appears to me to be mixing up a confused concept of ‘supreme evil’, the concept of ‘privation’ and his idea of ‘pure evil’). Ryan’s premise: “There is no such thing as pure evil = therefore satan has some good in him.” Which part of the summa does he CORRECTLY draw upon to create such ‘logic’?
It seems to me this statement of Indignus is the crucial point:
“… –since God causes the existence of all things He creates, even an evil thing is still first, a thing created by God, i.e. something with existence. And that existence itself, which God gave it, is good. So as long as a thing exists, it has some “good”–it’s existence.”
This statement I can understand. God is good – therefore what He creates is good – therefore existence is good – therefore the devil has good in his existence, as does everything created by God. Seems logical to me. I took that to be St. Thomas’ definitive view, supplied by Indignus. So my question to Indignus is, were you quoting St. Thomas, or expressing your understanding of St. Thomas? If you were quoting St. Thomas please can you provide the reference source?
Dear Salvemur,
Thank you for John Vennari’s informative article on the “New Theology”. John Vennari explains that “The New Theology is a false “religious” system that became popular among Catholics in Europe from the 1920s onward. Because it was recognized as resurgent modernism, it was kept under a lid by the Vatican and was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis”, (modernism having been condemned by St. Pius X as the synthesis of all heresies in Pascendi). John Vennari notes the ardent support for this “false “religious” system”, or modernism, by Montini, Wotjyla and Ratzinger and yet still recognizes the latter three gentlemen as having been valid Popes. Amazing!
BTW. Indignus, you misquoted me in the comments here. You say that I said I “could not find a single word in the Summa suggesting anything other than (pure?) evil regarding the devil.” If you look at the comment above, but I’ll save you the time, I said: “I cannot find a single word in the Summa suggesting anything other than satan is what Our Lord says he is, ‘a liar and a murderer – from the beginning.’ St Thomas concludes: “as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness…the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation..(St Jerome) says (Contra Jovin. ii, 2) that “as God is the perfecter of good, so is the devil the perfecter of evil”…”
–
Without going over to Aquinas’ ‘On Evil’; to start with we were addressing the two natures of Christ, but thanks to Ryan’s defense of satan’s inherent goodnes – goodness, look what a mess we are in. However, back to the brief bits and pieces rasied in the actual comments, none of the statements quoted from St Thomas reduce to ‘satan has some good in him’.
–
I will leave it to others to defend the goodness or lack thereof inherent in fallen angels, this stuff is well beyond my state.
Worth the read, eh.
–
PS. To the above, as it is not a matter of Faith that one believe in that the destroyer of souls has ‘some good in him’, I’m more than happy to conclude that the first creature to be beyond redemption has absolutely no redeeming qualites.
RE: ‘yet still recognises’; it seems to me that one must believe in the VII ‘virtue’ of mixing Christ and belial, in order to seriously believe that the modernists/perverters of the Faith have the same God-approved jurisdiction as the Catholic Popes.
To me personally, Indignus’s statement that “And that existence itself [of the devil], which God gave it, is good.” makes a lot more sense than Fr Ryan’s that “satan has some good IN HIM.” (unless by “in him” he meant “through his existence”. No matter how hard I look at it, the words “IN HIM” seemed to imply in his very nature as the devil, in his soul, but that runs counter to St Jerome who states that the devil is the “perfecter of evil”.
–
I could explain the “good” in the “devil’s existence” because of the greater good that God can bring about through evil, such as the work of the redemption.
For the record, none of Indignus’ Aquinas quotes support in any way Ryan’s quote.
–
Even the quote about ‘spoken of as evil, formally…’ is pertaining to ‘man’. It nowhere mentions the devil, so why did Indignus cut off the quote before the object of the investigation beings? The rest of the quote reads: “Thus a man is said to be evil, because he lacks some virtue; and an eye is said to be evil, because it lacks the power to see well.” The other quotes are, as I pointed out, an investigation of when the devil fell from heaven; and refuting the gnostic/manichean idea of a ‘god of evil’ equal in power to and opposing God.
–
Back to the premise which Indignus presents as their interpretation of Ryan from the new theologian link: Indignus is saying that by virtue of being created (given existence), it follows that every creature, even the creature that is now beyond redemption, still has some ‘good in him’. Again, I can’t find Thomas anywhere saying such a thing about the father-of-lies.
I guess this is the result of dialogue. I made the mistake of presenting a straighforward very clear quote (one that anyone can understand) from ST, on the two natures of Christ. Indignus then supplied Aquinas as seen through a new theologians musings and comments. Added to this was Indignus’ ‘God gave existence’ quote as being ‘according to Aquinas’, next thing you know people are searching for evidence of goodness in the devil.
my dear salvemur–re: “result of dialogue.”
I know.
(smiley face)
Dear Salvemur (and all), Apologies for the lenght, but you raised four very important issues that we are hoping to help resolve with truth.
==========
FIRST: Your statements indicate you believe Fr. Ryan’s comments to be modernist heresy, and that he is part of the Movement John Venarri exposed in his article. Given the name of his blog, that is very understandable. However, we see nothing on his blog that seems unfaithful to Church teachings, and saw that he linked as recommended references: St. Alphonsus, the Council of Trent, Aquinas, the Haydock Commentary, the Douey Rheims Bible, Pius X, and the Baltimore Catechism.
__
So we now have to ask if the name could be purely coincidental, strange as that may seem? John Vennari says that movement began in the early 1900’s. Father claimed “The New Theological Movement” (the name of his blog) was “created” as a response to Pope Benedict’s call to priests. On his “about page” he wrote:
— “Theology and liturgy are inseparable because they both inform and enrich each other as the lex orandi, lex credendi of the Church.”
— “In response to the Holy Father’s request that priests make full and responsible use of the modern means of communication, the New Theological Movement was created.
__
MORE IMPORTANTLY, John Vennari’s article quotes REGINAL GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE no less than NINE times, to refute the beliefs of that movement to which you refer.
__
On the side bar of his “About” page, Father Ryan’s recommended references include direct links to the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,
“Christ the Saviour; Grace; Life Everlasting; Providence; Reality, A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought; The Three Ages of the Interior Life; The Three Ways of the Spiritual Life;The Trinity and God the Creator; AND lastly:
“WHERE IS THE NEW THEOLOGY LEADING US?”
__
Since the links on Fathers sight no longer work, we found another online source for that last title listed. It was prefaced with this Editor’s note:
Catholic Family News proudly presents its exclusive English translation of Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s landmark work, “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?”, which was first published in 1946 in Rome’s Angelicum, one of the most prestigious theological journals in the world. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. one of the greatest Thomistic theologians of this century, warned that the “New Theology” of Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac, etc. is nothing more than a revitalized Modernism. This same new theology was subsequently deounced by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. This article, because of its in-depth nature, is meant not only to be read, but studied. It is hoped that the publication of this work will help dispel the widespread confusion of our time, especially since, by admission of its own adherents, this modernist “new theology” has become “the official theology of Vatican II”. (See Si Si No No series “They Think They Have Won” on “The New Theology”)
___
So we have to ask again, could you be completely mistaken about Father Ryan? Isn’t it possible he named his blog that way to purposely attract aherents of that “movement” in order to set them straight? He does seem to have a LOT of commenters who are highly- educated-in philosopy and theology.
===========
SECOND: We prefaced our first comment on this Aquinas thread with the fact that we are no theologians. Nothing about that has changed. Where the teachings of Aquinas seem simple enough for the untrained philosopher to understand, we try to apply them. But we would never cut off a quote to mislead anyone to thinking we proved something we hadn’t , as you implied. On the quote you cited we saw that the reminder was merely an example, and thought the point had been sufficiently made.
__
You also wrote “Added to this was Indignus’ ‘God gave existence’ quote as being ‘according to Aquinas’, next thing you know people are searching for evidence of goodness in the devil.”
-On the contrary, we did not use any quotation marks in that post. Does that not make it false for you to refer to it as Indignus’.. quote? It was our understanding that Aquinas taught those things, based on several online explanations of his teachings on that subject which stated that he did. We didn’t collect and link them at the time, because Louie had recently said multiples cause problems, and because we assumed they were well-known, easily verifable facts. Since you believe otherwise, we will try to find them again if you wish us to.
__
THIRD: You imply we possess (and were wearing?) an anti-Sede “hat”.
Especially regarding people who identify as Sede’s, but also regarding Sede vacantism itself, we began considering that position a long time ago-for ourselves- when reading about the Pope in the 1980’s (Assisi etc). (without the internet to check it out). We easily understand the provocations for its growth in popularity over the years since then, and have no reason to hold the pursuing of it against anyone. Rather , we assume they wants to know and do God’s will, which is how we view you, based on your posts. We do always oppose personal attacks on people who disagree with that view, and accusations of “willful ignorance” or “sin” for remaining in what is frequently termed the “N.O. Church” –especially for frequenting its Sacraments. Some non Sede’s do that, too. Our opposition in these cases is not anti-“Sede”, it is anti-individual instances of injustice and lack of Charity. The fact that our own search led us farther away from your views, does not mean we disrespect you . And besides that, we saw no relation here to that issue, at all.
__
FOURTH AND FINALLY:
After your challenge, we looked to the Summa to see whether or not it backed Father’s claims; and believed that what we found showed it did, despite not finding anything specifically addressing “pure evil” regarding the angels–as you rightly pointed out. Our limited philosophy prevents us from knowing whether or not your current contentions are correct. But we can still use our reason, and if those quotes apply to God and to men-as they apparently do, then we are led to ask, why would they NOT apply to the angels as well? We know we are made in God’s image, and that likeness is strongest regarding our souls, which the Angels being pure spirits, also possess, though with higher powers.
__
So– we looked further –keeping in mind your objection that Father spoke in the present tense about the devil’s “good”. We wonder if you think what we found here, addresses this issue more fully We include the link.
__
Your link to the New Theological Movement has made us newly wary of trusting Aquinas “experts” online, (Thank you for that, BTW) so we’re now officially IN over our heads here, and we know it. For whatever it’s worth in this ongoing unofficial “dialogue” regarding whether this goodness of being applies to Satan– it does seem logical that the principle would apply to all God’s creatures, and that our “existence” or “being” remains separate from our choices and actions, even if all of those choices are evil. (But this last is just our jointly- held opinion at present)
__
Here’s what we found:
“Goodness, for Aquinas, is a transcendental quality, which means that it is found in all the categories of being. Goodness is convertible with being, which means that a thing’s goodness is its being as that is the object of an inclination, either of itself or of another thing. Thus, Aquinas explains what was a well established dictum in the Middle Ages: “the good is what everything desires.” What everything, every being, desires, i.e. inclines toward, is that it continue to be or exist. This is the most universal sense of goodness, and the sense in which everything is good, insofar as everything is a being. This, then, is a sort of general metaphysical goodness. But Aquinas says that this is goodness only in a certain respect (secundum quid). The absolute goodness of a thing (secundum se) is what is proper to it, and so if something is lacking some good which is proper to it, it has an evil since evil is simply the lack of a good that is due it. The absolute goodness of a thing is it’s perfection, i.e. it having all the being it is supposed to have.
__
When you turn to moral goodness, you have to realize that for Aquinas, what is moral is what reason discovers that one ought to do. Thus, morality is founded in his notion of natural law. (it continues from this point regarding human acts)….and concludes with:
__
We must therefore say that every action has goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is lacking in goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its fulness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or something of the kind.
(Summa Theologiae Ia-IIae, q. 18, a. 1). http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/goodevil.html
p.s.
Regarding Father Ryan,
We’re trying to “check him out” online. We hold off on recommending him because we’re finding some criticism of his postings, and need time to sort through it all. One complains that he called some of John Paul II’s teachings-“not Catholic” and “heresy” on his blog’ when a poster used the pseudonym “Johannes” to quote the Pope’s words in a general audience about our Lord “growing in understanding” . Reminds us of Louie’s comments about Francis and Jesus’ stripping Himself of Glory, (making Fr. Ryan even more appealing?). But caution is advisable. 🙂 🙂
He seems to have a made a serious enemy of a man named Ron Conte, Jr.
who is known for books on Theology and making false predictions connected with Medjugorje.
pps. This site describes Father Ryan’s background and says he graduated summa cum laude from both the Gregorian and Angelicum in Rome, and since furthered his studies. It confirms that he blogged under the pseudonym “Reginalus” in honor of Reginal Garrigoud-Lagrange, until it was thought better that he use his own name.
http://fatherryanerlenbush.blogspot.com/
Indignus,
Thanks for answering my question also. And thanks for all the trouble you have taken in this matter. You have done a lot of work. In one way and another, I think we have all learned new things in our discussion.
Dear Peter,
You’re welcome. We learned a lot, too. (including never judge a book by it’s title, and why we’ll never be experts on Aquinas) 🙂 🙂
If there were a cross-eyed smiley face icon, you’d see it here.
TWN, I was referring to the ‘catechism of the catholic church’ of the Ratzinger-Wojtyla collaboration: “Latin-text copyright 1994”. It was largely produced to ‘make sense’ of Vatican II – specifically for the bookshelves and minds of Novus Ordo parish priests fumbling around about how to ‘fit’ Catholicism with VII.
–
PS. You might find this interesting. Bishop Pivarunas talks a little about the pre-VII canon law — http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-from-the-pulpit-episode-40-satan-will-try-to-deceive-even-the-elect-part-1/
TWN, As you can see the CCC was ’94 not ’84, 4 what it’s worth.
If someone connected with the Medjugorje scam is making accusations or criticisms against Fr Ryan I reckon that’s a good sign of his credibility and orthodoxy…
🙂
We think so, too.