Recent Posts

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Hell-the right position and the wrong position

Originally posted on December 9th. See updates.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2383  Wrong!




 Above Video--Right!  And which man is in charge of one of the most prestigious seminaries in America?

UPDATE ON MONDAY: the vast majority of comments on the original article are against the modernist position. Good thing, too. But, people, when talking about hell, do not resort to private revelations, but the doctrines of the Church. Just look at the Creed and the CCC.

UPDATE ON TUESDAY:  I am putting links in the commentary box for more follow-up on other sites on this. Take a look.


6 comments:

ellen said...

Fr. Barron's arguments did not make any sense at all to me and it was depressing to read what he said, but it was heartening to read the comments on his article - ordinary Catholics refuting the error. Many people whom I love very much have lapsed from the Faith and without exception they believe that if there is a heaven they will go there. Fear of hell starts us on the path back to God and after we have repented and made a good Confession, then we can learn to love God and strive to live holy lives. I have actually had people say to me that they believe in God - just not "your God" i.e. a God Who would allow people to choose hell.

Supertradmum said...

ellen, you can read more nonsense from this priest quoted here.

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/fr-robert-barron-adam-and-eve-theological-poetry/

Supertradmum said...

The problem with Fr. Barron partly is that he is keen on von Balthasar, who also fudges on the hell issue. I had studied this phenomenologist for seven years, before giving up on him, so I am writing from first-hand interpretation.

I like Voris in so far as he pushes the debate to a large, obviously, audience and more people will read Martin’s book now. His statements are not Pelagian, by the way, as one can check easily on my blog, Voris’ own comments in the past on heresies, etc. He is probably trying to say too much in a short period of time.

As to Fatima, the saints, and other visionaries, we cannot make apologetic or dogmatic statements based on those. A Marian apparition may be approved without all the vision being approved. It is not good apologetics to appeal to visionary statements. We have 2,000 years of teaching on hell and punishment, from Christ Himself up to the present day, and, we have, of course, the Creed. I may believe in these, but they do not belong as part of rational discourse.

As to misquoting the footnote in Martin, that is just plain sloppiness on the part of Barron. Scholars need to be very careful.

The heresy of universal salvation is the most common among Catholics, who do not understand the sacrament of baptism or who do not believe in Original Sin. We only become heirs of heaven and adopted children of God in baptism. That could be a clarification needed here as well. Without that sacrament, many do not have the graces for salvation and will go to hell. There is a mystery about God’s grace which we cannot understand, but only see in gratitude for the opportunity for salvation..

Those of you, many of whom I respect in your comments, who think Voris is strident, should recall Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezechiel, and Christ Himself, who did not mince words or always use a tactful tone. There is such a thing as righteous anger. We have all become way too nice. ( my comment on http://blog.adw.org)

Supertradmum said...

http://blog.adw.org/2012/12/hurts-and-hopes-regarding-the-recent-debates-on-hell/#comments

Matthew Roth said...

Now, Supertradmum, the problem with emphasizing baptism is that as I've seen lately online is that it's easy to lapse into Feeneyism. We must be careful to remember baptism by blood and desire, and that grace can be made available in unseen ways.
I also would like to point out that Voris isn't any of those figures you named, and that his lack of tact is often seen as uncharitable. If I weren't Catholic, I wouldn't to become one, let alone a saint if that's what I was told to listen to.

Supertradmum said...

Matthew, the theology behind baptism of desire and blood are very specific. One must be killed for the sake of Jesus Christ. This is unlikely to happen if a person is not moral or has not heard of Christ. Martyrdom is not a situation where someone merely dies for freedom or a political cause,but for Christ. That kind of persecution is growing, but has not been worldwide. China and Japan for example refused to allow missionaries into the countries.

Baptism by desire means that one has heard the Gospel but has not been able to receive baptism from anyone. Now, that would be even more rare, as even the laity in emergency can baptize. One would have to be completely isolated in one's belief.

As to tact, I suggest you read more of the words of the prophets and John the Baptist. I do not think Voris holds a candle to such phrases as "brood of vipers" or "white-washed tombs". We do not have much time before all means of spreading the Truth are taken away, and just as the prophets had to speak loudly, clearly, harshly and under a time constraint, so to, do we all.

I do not know if you have access to Parliament on line. If you think Voris lacks tact, watch those proceedings and also Mayor's Question Time in London. Voris looks like a very meek person compared to those politicians.

Zeal causes strong feelings and strong beliefs. If one thinks that people are going to hell daily because of bad teaching, I would think that tact is expendable.