Over the past few years, Fr. Robert Barron has emerged as the quintessential icon of the so-called “conservative” Catholic movement, especially here in the United States.
Sure, little inter-family squabbles occasionally arise over such trivial matters as universal salvation and the existence of Hell, but for the most part, Fr. Barron is widely recognized as a leader among those who are bound by their common denial, albeit in varying degrees, of the plain reality that the newchurch that emerged after Vatican Council II bears precious little resemblance, in both behavior and teaching, to the Holy Catholic Church of the Roman Pontiffs, Saints and Doctors of the preceding centuries.
For some in the movement, like Michael Voris, this selective vision is really best understood as a self-imposed silence relative to the shenanigans of the popes; a flawed approach that does more harm than good, but one that is really more a matter of strategy than a case of pure denial.
Given the content of certain private conversations, I can attest that the same is true of others as well; in particular members of the sacred hierarchy who fear repercussion should they speak candidly of the crisis at hand.
Fr. Barron, on the other hand, gives every indication of suffering from that diabolical disorientation of which Our Blessed Lady forewarned, either that or he’s on a trip, the itinerary of which would make Abbie Hoffman jealous.
In a recent interview with Zenit, Fr. Barron shared some observations that are both laughable and stunning for their utter disconnect from reality.
Speaking of John XXIII and John Paul II, Fr. Barron said:
I think it is significant, their being canonized together. I think it has a lot to do with Vatican II. John XXIII calls Vatican II. It’s the great event of the last century for the Catholic Church. John Paul is there as a young bishop, and then archbishop. He helps to write some of the documents. Then as Pope, gives clearly the definitive interpretation of Vatican II.
I suppose it only makes sense given his status as a leader among deniers that Fr. Barron holds to the opinion that Vatican II was “great” for the Church, but this notion that Pope John Paul II provided a “definitive interpretation” of its contents is nothing short of pure fantasy.
One of the primary causes of the post-conciliar crisis is the absence of just such “definitive” papal judgment.
From John Paul II on forward, every pope who has reigned since Pope Paul VI pathetically bemoaned the “smoke of Satan” has been far too busy glorifying the Council to exercise their Spirit protected authority and solemn duty to give definitive interpretation to its texts.
If the day ever comes (God willing, in my lifetime) when a Roman Pontiff does so, he will necessarily be required to address head-on the Council’s every confusion, ambiguity and error; quite an undertaking to be sure.
That means clearly condemning the preposterous notion that Christ uses the protestant communities, as communities, as a means of salvation (UR 3). It will also necessarily entail rejecting the utterly false suggestion that the children of the Church have been made one with the Jews, apart from their conversion to the one true Faith, in the same Christ Jesus whom they continue to reject (NA 4). It would also mean proclaiming that he who says that “man, by his very own nature, enjoys the right to religious freedom even if he fails live up to his obligations relative to the true religion,” let him be anathema. (DH 2)
I could go on, but presumably you get the point: Fr. Barron is kidding himself when he speaks of definitive conciliar interpretations, and far worse, he is misleading millions.
Further expounding on the Council, Fr. Barron said:
It took a long time [to arrive at a consolidated understanding of Vatican II], but that’s typical after a council. Especially a council as big as Vatican II – I mean, big in terms of the bishops who were there, but also the size of the documents. Compare Vatican II, for example, to Trent or Vatican I or Chalcedon or Nicea. The documentation is far more extensive.
This is a popular claim, one that I also used to make until such time as the scales fell from my eyes, but never again.
While Vatican II and the preceding twenty general councils are each known as “ecumenical,” when it comes to substance, comparing them is a study in apples and oranges.
Unlike the others, Vatican II was not charged with issuing solemn definitions in the face of a doctrinal crisis and all of the upheaval that naturally accompanies it. This council was charged with simply re-presenting the immutable truths of the faith as defined by councils and Pontiffs past, while taking into consideration the circumstances of “modern” life such as it was when the council met.
Setting aside the relative wisdom, or lack thereof, of using a solemn instrument such as this for strictly “pastoral” purposes, the primary reason the Church is still wrestling to come to terms with the content of Vatican II lies in the fact that it failed to teach the immutable faith with precision and clarity.
Moving on to the recent canonizations, Fr. Barron offered:
To canonize someone is not to say that every particular judgment they made was the correct judgment. I think you can remark that there was a dark side of John Paul’s papacy, a certain inaction, let’s say, with regard to the sex abuse crisis – certainly in regard to Fr. Maciel and the slowness in responding to it. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that’s a negative feature of his papacy. But to say someone is a saint doesn’t mean that every move they made was correct, that they were flawless, or that every prudential judgment they made was [the right one]. It’s to look at an overall pattern of heroic virtue. That’s what we’re noticing.
Oh how selectively the deniers choose to identify patterns!
To his credit, at least Fr. Barron is willing to acknowledge, unlike the Prefect of the Congregation for Saints Causes, Cardinal Angelo Amato, that the process of canonization does in fact (as everyone understood prior to the conciliar revolution) take into account the performance of one’s duties given their state in life.
In the present case, as it relates to the way in which John Paul II carried out the mission of the Church in his exercise of the Petrine Office, if any “overall pattern” emerged therein it is a track record of abject failure.
For more than a quarter century, Karol Wojtyla failed to even attempt to call the nations to baptism, teaching them everything whatsoever that Our Blessed Lord commanded. On the contrary, he repeatedly confirmed those outside of the Church in their error, even going so far as to engage in numerous scandalous inter-religious activities with heathens, heretics and Jews.
This is not simply the case of an occasional mistake or simple omission, but rather the type of repeated and deliberate behavior that in a moderately healthier age would have rendered an assessment of “heroic virtue” entirely impossible.
As if to save his most ridiculous statement for last, Fr. Barron left us with this howler:
If you look at the grand sweep of the Church for the first 2,000 years, we’re going through a “Golden Age” of the papacy … Saint John XXIII, Paul VI with all of his spiritual power, and Saint John Paul II…
And we all know what this means to imply:
Surely a man of such great “spiritual power” as Pope Paul VI – the same who relinquished the papal tiara, presided over the unprecedented destruction of the sacred liturgy, and sat helpless as clergy the world over openly declared mutiny – can be denied canonization no longer.
The only good news in all of this is that as Fr. Barron waxes on about golden ages, heroic virtues and the greatness of the Council, the more likely he is to jolt his neo-con confreres from the cozy confines of their denial.
Paul VI Santo Subito!!
Francis I “The Humble” Santo Subito!!
Although, I must say, couldn’t one argue that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo missae and the new sacraments was such a “definitive interpretation of Vatican II”?
What about the post-conciliar praxis by the post-conciliar pontiffs? Couldn’t the praxis itself be considered a “Definitive interpretation” of the council?
As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t believe in hell, not only are you not a catholic, you’re not even a Christian. Hence, as far as I’m concerned at least, Mr Barron is not even a Catholic. I wouldn’t dare attend a mass celebrated by this apostate.
I cannot listen to the EWTN crowd any longer. The semantic gymnastics that they use to avoid the truth is very annoying.
yeah, trippin’, man.
The “a little bread and wine never hurt anybody” crowd.
This post is a masterpiece, if I may say, Mr. V.
Archbishop Lefebvre, obscure missionary priest, sound shepherd, pray for us.
Hi Louie. I don’t have to tell you that prior to the twin “canoniztions” we were told repeatedly that these ex-popes were being declared saints because of their personal sanctitiy — it had nothing to do with their papacies and ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Vatican II.
+ + +
Wha’ do ya’ know. Now that the dirty deed is done — and done quickly — it turns out it really IS all about canonizing Vatican II. They’ve torn down the Temple of God and built over top of it a shiny new synagogue of sin. This is the way of conquerors — they do everything to destroy the past and to erase it from memory…
+ + +
Over at Zenit there is also another article with the same theme.
Here’s a quote from the article:
“By canonizing them together, it’s a powerful statement about who we are as Catholics, what the church represents. But… it’s the full stamp of approval, not only on John’s holiness, but on the council, and what that meant, and what that represented for the Church.”
+ + +
It’s all starting to sink in… St. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.
Louie, you said,
“The only good news in all of this is that as Fr. Barron waxes on about golden ages, heroic virtues and the greatness of the Council, the more likely he is to jolt his neo-con confreres from the cozy confines of their denial.”
Why do you say that? What makes you say that? Only people who know their Catholic faith know that something is terribly wrong in the Church.
Yes, it’s almost impossible to listen to the ramblings on the EWTN radio, you hear………..”To look at JPII, is to see Christ”…..etc…..
This great multitude of the so-called Catholics who love the modern world, who love the modern church……are soooo thankful to have the ‘conciliar church’, ‘Vatican II’ and these two Popes canonized. Heck, even the Freemasons, the Jews, the atheistic media……are thoroughly pleased. The Wonder of ‘wonders’……… John XXIII and John Paul II are the ‘symbols’ of this mentality, the glorification of the Revolution…………. that has send so many naive, ignorant souls to hell…..Miserere!
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
Thanks for the continued good Catholic Sense, Louie. VII, if the Catholicism is ever to return to continuity of Faith has to be seen as the Trojan Horse it was and is. It is the deliberate equivocation of the Faith in order to render null and void the Faith. Fr Barren of Faith, fits nicely into the new church of the old convenant that has overthrown the New Covenant.
Any ‘pope’ who claims the old convenant hasn’t been revoked is lying. The Most Precious Blood of the New and Eternal Covenant, Price of Our Redemption was for what, then? Oh just for ‘gentiles’ – strange that since all the first Catholics were Jews. Strange that the old covenant perpetuated by the blood of animals, is somehow ‘equivalent’ or even seems to have superceded the Convenant wrought in the Blood of the Son of the Living God.
Re john 23, lest we forget he was the ‘Pope of 1960’ to whom was entrusted revealing the third secret of Fatima. Instead he put it under ‘permanent seal’ and proceeded to accommodate liberalism, communism and ‘open the windows’ to the enemy.
As reported at Catholic Family News, two weeks before Pope John Paul II’s double beatification of Popes Pius IX and John XXIII, the progressivist Commonweal journal observed in its August 11, 2000 issue:
“The splendid absurdity of the coming event can be grasped when we recognize that John XXIII and John Paul II would both have been condemned for their ideas and their words had they expressed them when Pius IX was in power.”
Placido Pax, that paragon of conciliar madness, bids farewell:
2 May = Feast of St Athanasius. Oro pro nobis.
Can trads AT LEAST agree on this: to refrain from speaking about the CANONIZATIONS of St JP II and J XIII and start talking about the “CANONIZATIONS” of “St” JP II “The Great” and “Good” “St” J XXIII?
It appears from blogs some trads have come up with the most absurd theories why JP II could be a “Saint” after all – citing the example of St Dismas the good thief who was a sinner throughout his life!! It’s incredible that one would even have to counter such an argument but here you go: St Dismas PUBLICLY repented and made a PUBLIC profession of his faith at a time when EVEN Christ’s own apostles had deserted Him. He PUBLICLY defended Our Lord against His enemies and PUBLICLY rebuked the other wrethed soul who was crucified next to Our Lord for not fearing God. In other words, he made a public HEROIC profession of his faith, having a HEROIC trust in Our Lord’s mercy.
When did “St” JP II “The Great” PUBLICLY denounce and repent of the Assisi apostatical gatherings, among a multitude of other such grievous actions?
Maybe this will put the matter into a better perspective:
What alleged “heroic” virtue of “St” JP II “The Great” would one want to inculcate in one’s own children? Can anyone else help me here?
Let us say that someone who is starting to learn the faith (imagine he lives in a cave and so has no clue that they have been “Canonized”) picks up and starts reading a legit biography of “St” JP II with all the nefarious details of the sexual abuse cover-up. Will this soul be edified, fortified in the faith, and take “St” JP II as a good example to follow? Will he think “gee, what a holy man, I really ought to follow his saintly example”
If the answer is a resounding NO, why do so many trads still insist on putting the “St” label before JP II?!
Oh, if at least some common sense and unity could be found among faithful catholics on this single most obvious issue!!
Agree, Edu. In my little corner of the world, formerly clear thinking ‘conservative’ Catholics are going all schmaintmania about these two. Unless one truly believes these blokes to have been models of Christ and His Church (including the 1900 odd years before Roncalli bounced back from his deserved ‘demotion’ under Pius XII to grab the revenge stick) they remain what they were, vii modernist papal offenders, unrepentant.
p.s. common sense, reason, or, indeed, Faith, have little to do with people’s loyalty to brand-vii.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Tragically, Father Barron is one of countless N.O. priests who are either ignorant, in denial, or intentionally destructive, while the average Catholic in the pew is a victim of mind-numbing “luv-fests”. Even more tragic, the Popes who put Our Lord’s Church on this horrendous path are being canonized without due process. I don’t see a restoration while Bergoglio is “in charge”. Thank God for SSPX and all holy priests who are holding steadfast to Tradition.
Pope St, Pius X, foe of modernism, pray for us!
Fr. Barron is a manifest heretic. He doesn’t believe in the historical Adam and Eve. Why anyone would pay attention to this guy is beyond me.
Tragically, as you know, Mr. Barron has been forcefeeding his particular brand of regurgitated protestantism to seminarians for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, his DVDs dominate so many R.C.I.A. and adult education classes. Pray for him. He is a priest of God and, tragically, has so much influence, through the media, in our parishes.
Further proof from “Fr” Barren that the “canonizations” were nothing more than the canonization of VII. It seems we don’t even get a word now about the alleged “holiness” of “St” JP II “The Great”:
PS At least one can thank “Fr” Barren for having the honesty to state plainly what any catholic with half a brain already knew months ago: it’s the canonization of VII duh
As we all know, a tremendous fraud is being perpetrated on the not only the Church, but the entire world as well. As the Church, so goes the world. For 50 years this deceit has rooted itself in the souls of our people. Yet, people everywhere know something is wrong. It took me all this time to become a bit aware and I am before VII. It is time for the debate to challenge this status quo. Like the apostles after Pentecost, it is time to stand right up and begin. This facade needs to be challenged by every group who knows the true faith. Though it had 50 years to develop, its roots are not deep. Only the truth goes deep down. They were mostly fishermen to stand up to the politics of their time. We are much more blessed with the means to tear away the masks of those who have infiltrated our Church. The Church will always survive. It is for souls that we speak.
Speaking of facades there is a very good book out there called “The Great Facade”. Written by Christopher Ferrara, it points out key areas of concern and confusion in the Church in post-VII times.
You should give Fr. Barron the “benefit of the doubt” – it is not a bad trip; “rather,” it is too much caffeine.