Michael Voris Again Smears an Innocent Catholic

When we think of menaces to the Church or obvious dissenters, who should we think of? Pelosi? Sebelius? Islamic murderers of Christians? Apostate theologians who say Jesus was eaten by wild dogs? Crony capitalists destroying families with unjust wages?

Of course not! No the huge threat we face are the best evangelists of our generation. So Michael Voris sets about the task of ginning up a mob against none other than Fr. Robert Barron as a heretic for his views on hell, just as he recently set about ginning up a mob about those equally dangerous people Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Al Kresta their ilk–again providing evidence that Reactionaries are, at bottom, most frightened of evangelists.

Here is what Fr. Barron actually has to say. You will note that what he has to say is basically identical to what Pope Benedict has to say in Spe Salvi. It is, as it is with Benedict, a speculation, not a forecast or a doctrine. Voris, to his credit cannot bring himself to declare Benedict “wrong” but does not hesitate to bring up Barron on heresy charges for his audience. The problem is, Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation. No. Really:

Now those, such as Ralph Martin who speculate that few will be saved are also (obviously) also within the pale of orthodoxy and share their opinion with not a few Fathers and theologians. But at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.

But Voris is certain that somehow Benedict’s and Barron’s speculation is not *really* allowed by the Church and so set about portraying his opinion, not merely as “different but within the pale of orthodoxy” but as “wrong”:

The problem is, as we discuss here at some length, Barron is not “wrong” in his speculations just as Benedict is not wrong. They (and numerous other Catholics) are guilty of no dissent against Church teaching whatsoever. Yet Voris attacks all who share Barron’s opinion as guilty of precisely this.

Reader Joe Grabowski comments:

I would critique and refine Barron’s presentation of this matter in some regards, to be sure – and I am personally a champion of the theory that we can hope that all men may be saved. But it is one alternative of two equally allowable theological positions in an open question, and neither side can claim a slam-dunk victory in this matter because it is simply not definitely settled at this point.

And that’s what makes Voris’s presentation here (par for the course for him) malicious, unfair, ham-fisted, offensive, insulting, and stupid.

The exasperating thing about Voris’ consistent method is that he targets, not heretics or enemies of the Faith, but innocent people, disobedient to no precept of Holy Church, and dissenting from no doctrine of Holy Church, and then maliciously smears them with the suggestion (and in this case the flat declaration), that they are believing, living (and in Barron’s case) teaching error. Whether it’s Barron (as here), or Keating, Akin, Kresta et al (for the “sin” of making a living), or people who receive communion in the hand (who are somehow associated with Priscillianist heresy) or people who happen to like “Amazing Grace” (Protestantism!), Voris’ method is not to defend the Church from heresy, but to accuse innocents of heresy and sic his audience on them. It’s sinful and it should stop.

And before somebody says something stupid like “Why aren’t you taking this to Michael Voris directly?”, remember two things.

1.  I did, when he launched exactly this malicious attack at the Argument of the Month Club and I told him to his face that Fr. Robert Barron is not the enemy and this sort of fratricidal nonsense is purely destructive.

2. Lemme ask you, Gentle Reader, if you are wringing you hands over a public response to a public attack on an innocent man, have you gone to Michael Voris and asked him if he took this smear to Fr. Barron before recklessly launching this video today or whether he took his smears of Keating, Akin, Kresta et al to them to verify that there was, in fact, anything wrong with their personal incomes before broadcasting them to the universe with the suggestion that they are money-grubbing whores and gutless cowards in the pay of the Church of Nice?

This stuff is poison and needs to stop.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

Final Words from Catholic and Enjoying It
Question about Mercy
The Poisonous Fruit of Michael Voris' Work
Here's a lovely Christmas Story
  • FaithfulCatholic

    What I find horribly sad about some of the replies here (whether they be from lay people, deacons, or whomever) is the gross distortion with which they represent/understand the actual tenets of the Catholic Faith.

    It’s been 20 years since I’ve returned to Holy Mother Church…

    20 years of shock and dismay at the complete lack of solid Catechesis being taught, 20 years battling left wing pro gay/pro aborting “catholics”, 20 years battling right wing Radical Traditionalists, the result of all this spiritual deceit being:

    – the mass closings of parishes worldwide
    – many of the churches that remain open being half empty
    – catholic politicians making a public mockery of the Faith
    – “catholic” universities/institutions/parochial schools teaching formal heresy
    – the gay sub culture infiltrating our seminaries/priesthood
    – fem nazi nuns who’d rather follow Gloria Allred than the Church Fathers

    Etc. etc.

    Whatever errors these people attempt to disseminate, they are all viciously struck down by the statistics. Regardless, they remain oblivious to it all. I do not engage in endless discussions with the spiritually obstinate, I just inform and move on, wiping the dust from my feet.

    “For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world …”

    • chezami

      How does practicing two acts of soul-reading on two strangers constitute addressing any of the problems you have mentioned here?

      • Deacon Jerry

        Hmmm…

    • Deacon Jerry

      So if the Church is it… why did you leave?

      • Pat Lopez

        Why do ask?

    • Richard Long

      You are certainly are a member of the CULT MICHAEL VORIS, a cult founded on condemnation of others!

      Go ahead, get out your divining rods, or your tarot cards, your oracle stone, or whatever it is you use, enter into your state of clairvoyance and read my soul as well. Boy ‘oh boy, I can’t wait.

      • Pat Lopez

        I’m glad that you are not thowing the first stone or practicing the condemnation of others like the evil Michael Voris.

  • Pilgrimike

    Fr. Barron’s reasonable hope that all people be saved from hell is very ignorant or dismissive of the Fatima visions of hell (July 13, 1917) and subsequent revelations by Sr. Lucia.

    Reference: Francis Johnston, Fatima, The Great Sign (Rockford, IL:Tan Publishers, Inc., 1980) p. 36.

    The following is a rare interview with Sister Lucia [the Fatima visionary who died in 2005], by Father Lombardi. It was recorded in the Vatican weekly “Osservatore della Domenica” February 7, 1954.

    Fr. Lombardi: “Tell me, is the ‘Better World Movement’ a response of the Church to the words spoken to Our Lady?”

    Lucia: “Father, there is certainly a great need for this renewal. If it is not done, and taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved.”

    Fr. Lombardi: “Do you really believe that many will go to Hell? I hope that God will save the greater part of humanity.” [He had just written a book entitled: Salvation for Those Without Faith]

    Lucia: “Father, many will be lost.”

    Fr. Lombardi: “It is true that the world is full of evil, but there is always a hope of
    salvation.”

    Lucia: “No Father, many will be lost.”

    Father Lombardi remembered that Lucia had seen Hell and added: “Her words disturbed me. I returned to Italy with that grave warning impressed on my heart.”

    • chezami

      You do realize, don’t you, that all he did was repeat the speculations of Pope Benedict?

      • Pilgrimike

        Perhaps – I have to look up what Pope Benedict said exactly, but espousing this “hope” appears reckless to me. All he did was , from a position of scholarly authority, communicate that hell is theoretically possible but that most of us should be saved. In Western culture, where sin is no longer called a sin anymore, we need more danger signs, more warning bells, more shouts, “you are going the wrong way!” Not out of “arrogant judging” but loving reproachments and concern. Reminds me how recently, there was a massive pileup on a local interstate when the speed limits were prematurely lifted despite the icy conditions. “Don’t concern yourselves – you should all be fine!” Fortunately everyone lived and nobody faced their eternal judgement in that case.

        • chezami

          No. He didn’t do any of that. Until you actually know what you are talking about, and what Pope Benedict and Barron actually said, why not stop popping off about how ignorant they are, since it is clearly you who have no idea who or what you are blithely condemning.

          • Pilgrimike

            Peace, Chezami. I listened to what the good Fr. Barron said before I popped off, and have since read the quote from Spe Salvi, 45-47. Though I assure you my criticism was not meant as a condemnation of two most excellent men, nor was it performed blithely, I regret the harsh connotations of the word “ignorant” – Please substitute it for “unaware” (which I doubt for both Fr. Barron and most certainly not for Pope Benedict), though Fr. Barron is more likley “dismissive” of the alarm bells rang at Fatima (re: Fatima prayer appended to rosaries), or by St. Teresa of Avila, or the warnings of Akita, etc. As for Spe Salvi, the Pope’s comment sounds like a supposition — not necessarily a statement of his belief, and needs clarification from the holy father. I am critical not of Fr. Barron’s optimism (I wish I had it!) but that it wasn’t coupled with an urgent concern for this culture which cares less and less about sin and its deadly consequences.

        • Donald R

          Want to save everyone now living? Christ gave us a way: the ACT OF LOVE prayer. “Jesus, Mary, I love you: save souls!” 1 soul WILL be saved each time it is said, and 1,000 blasphemies WILL be repaired each time, too. It’s church approved and has a partial indulgence. Let’s get 10,000,000 catholics to say it 100 times, and this whole generation will eventually be saved.

      • CradleRevert

        Only if you mis-understand what Pope Benedict said in Spe Salvi. He never said that we could have a reasonable hope that hell is empty or nearly empty.

        Here’s a summary of what he really said: In this life there are a very small number of people who are so very evil that heaven is nearly an impossibility for them. On the other hand, there are also a very small number of people who are so virtuous that anything but heaven is unimaginable for them. Outside of those two groups, the remainder of those still living fall somewhere in between. Each individual person in this remainder is neither so far down the path to hell nor so far up the path to heaven that they couldn’t come to either as their final destination. They could each reasonably have a chance of salvation, but they could each reasonably wind up in hell also.

        THAT’s what Pope Benedict was saying in Spe Salvi. This is a far cry from what Fr. Barron is saying. Fr. Barron’s views on this subject are nearly impossible to square up with what our Lord says each time that he mentions hell in the Gospels. Christ certainly never said anything to lead us to believe that we could have a “reasonable hope” that hell is empty.

        We’re certainly free to have a hope that hell is empty, but there is nothing reasonable about it.

    • Guest

      I’ve always found the Fatima ‘prophecies’ highly suspect.

    • FranktheMc

      I always considered Fatima to be more about UFOs than the BVM.

    • solerso

      You are speculating. Your special witnesses do not change that fact. In fact, thats why they call your kind of argument “special pleading”

    • Donald R

      Lucia, God love her, was a visionary. The sun did not LITERALLY dislodge and plummet toward the earth during the Miracle of the Sun. It was a divinely-given sign and optical illusion. The sun is what we orbit AROUND, it CANNOT literally “fall to earth.” So with the visions of people in hell. Mary was showing us exactly what is possible, even likely, for unrepentant sinners. I doubt that they LITERALLY saw hell, because those sinners’ s bodies have NOT been resurrected yet, therefore their bodies CANNOT literally be burning in Hell yet! Fatima was a powerful call to Repentance, but a lot of it was VISIONS, not literal seeing of what actually IS. What Percentage of humankind will be lost? We cannot know.

  • Thomas DiMattia

    It’s time the Vatican considers this person no longer a catholic. . .if what is written here is true.

    • CradleRevert

      Voris or Fr. Barron?

  • FranktheMc

    For the record, Voris often talks about the illegitimacy of the Orthodox Churches, which indicates to me a reckless ignorance of Church history and theology.

  • solerso

    Hear Hear !!!! . Vorris is an ignorant, dishonest, two faced dissembling smear artist pushing the agenda of his money grubbing, war maongering masters

    • Jenn

      Voris also pushes people away from the church..its no wonder so many people are leaving and so many churches are closing…those of us who are big sinners no longer feel welcomed into the church because of Voris…God have mercy on his soul…

      • Richard Long

        Don’t give up on the Church, WE “big sinners” need the church, it is the place for healing! Voris proves on thing, God not only welcomes sinners, but assholes as well! :-)

        • Gigahoo

          Exactly what kind of healing do you have in mind?

          • Jenn

            you need to mind your own business here and stop hurting people with your ridiculous comments…

          • Jenn
          • Richard Long

            What kind of healing… Reconciliation you jackass! It would sound like this:

            Me: bless me father for I have sinned; it’s been three months since my last. Since that last reconciliation, well, the only thing I did was bust Gigahoo’s fu$&*#g teeth out of his head.

            Fr: don’t worry my son, your sins are forgiven! Besides bastard deserve it.

            • chezami
            • MDK66

              Wow. Richard Long, what a fine example of charity. I’ve read some of Lives of Saints. Incredible examples of how to live one’s faith! But, gee, I think I might have to follow your example. Name-calling. Cussing. Pride. All the signs of a great saint. Now that I’ve indulged in a bit of sarcasm, let me be more serious. Do you want to go to heaven? Do you want to act like a saint? Only saints are in heaven. We’re all called to be saints. Re-reading your last post, do you see evidence of a person ready, or even trying, to be united to God? Me neither, try better.

              • Richard Long

                I’m not trying to be a saint… frankly I’m trying to tell all you judgmental assholes to fuck off.

                You’re so worried about judging Jenn, or myself, or anyone who doesn’t fit your narrow minded description of Catholicism, that you missed one subtle yet intriguingly important fact, and that is, I really don’t give a fuck what you have to say! The most important thing in this life, is the dignity of Jenn or any other soul hurt and searching for healing. So until then, chatter on, I don’t care; oh yeah I was serious about one thing, and unlike you it’s not veiled in sarcasm, fuck off!

                • MDK66

                  Why don’t you want to go to heaven? If you are not trying to be a saint then you are not trying to live the faith. Again, only saints are in heaven. If you bother to reply, could you do so without cussing up a blue streak, please?

                  • Richard Long

                    See you are being judgmental again:

                    1) Did not say I’m not going to heaven. (you’re making a broad judgment from a blog)

                    2) You know I’m not living my faith. (you’re again making a broad judgment based upon a blog)

                    3) I’m not cussing a blue streak, it’s fucking yellow! )you are color blind)

                    Thanks for you’re opinion that because of my language, I’m not heading for heaven, nor living my faith. The language is a sarcastic metaphor to contrast your and gigahoo equally offensive condemning attitudes.

                    To the point of this entire blog… the source and summit of the current tide of animosity within Catholics, Mike Voris and his hate-filled, self righteous, know-it-all, condemning minions.

                    My advise to you… put away your Ouija board and tarot cards, and quit trying give free readings of the people here; obvious to me, you are practicing some kind of evil black sorcery, to be able to discern the hearts and minds of so many; so sinful!!! Again more sarcasm, to illustrate your equally offensive condemning attitudes.

                    • MDK66

                      #1 & #2 You said you are not trying to be a saint. Only saints are in heaven. So what is the conclusion I am to make from that?

                      You are not paying much attention to what I write. I didn’t say you are not heading for heaven because of your foul language.

                      I am not sure if you are an adult or not based on your decision to use such obscene language. If you are an adult, read 1 Corinthians 13:11.

                    • Richard Long

                      The quote, “I’m not trying to be a saint… frankly I’m trying to tell all you judgmental assholes to fuck off.” is in regards to this blog you dip shit. But judgmental people tend to always see things as they want or read into thing to create their own reality… good try… I still think your using black magic and an Ouija Board to read me! :-)

                      Great scripture passage, but perhaps before you go referring others to read scripture, you could spend some quality time, not reading, but praying with the entire 7th chapter of Matthew.

                    • Jenn

                      GOSH SAKES…WILL YOU JUST FUCK OFF ALREADY! YOU CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN BUT YOU SOUND LIKE SOME SORT OF FUCKING ATHIEST! SEEMS TO ME LIKE RICHARD LONG KNOWS THE HEART AND MIND OF JESUS MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL!!!

                    • Jenn

                      GOD BLESS YOU RICHARD! I am fed up with these judgmental assholes…You know the heart and mind of Jesus more than any of these so called Christians…I know Jesus loves me and I am certain that you are right up there with all the saints in heaven…GOD BLESS YOU!!!

        • Jenn

          Thank you for making me feel a bit more welcomed in the church…I love God so much that it hurts to have people say that I am not welcomed when clearly I and so many other sinners are welcomed :)

          • Artistree

            God bless you Jenn. Christ loves you dearly.

            In the Gospel of John, Chapter 4, Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman. As you know, she has been divorced and remarried many times, having five husbands. Yet Christ offers her Life giving Water ( the Holy Spirit). But what is truly remarkable is the marital imagery that St. John uses in the “woman at the well ” story to tell us that Jesus is reaching out to this divorced woman and offering spiritual marriage to her as his spiritual bride.

            By Faith this divorced and remarried woman is a symbol of the Church, for the Samaritan woman is a symbol of all of us.

            • Jenn

              THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU…you have told this so beautifully that I am ready to cry….GOD LOVE YOU…and again…THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

        • MDK66

          Can you not make your point without being rude?

  • Tfrenn

    I like Voris for the simple reason he comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.

    • chezami

      Actually, he frequently afflicts the innocent and he reliably tells his audience exactly what they want to hear about themselves.

      • Tfrenn

        Has Fr. Barron ever
        said anything that would upset anyone including enemies of the Church like Christopher Hitchins? No. He’s so nice.

        • chezami

          One of these days, Voris fans will figure out that being unjustly accusatory is not the same thing as speaking truth to power. They may even figure out that the Fr. Barron is not the problem the Church faces and stop bayonetting our own troops. How about, instead of attacking Barron, you do something constructive?

          • Anna

            Well said Chezami.

        • Donald R

          What an incredible, backhandedly-accusatory question! The answer is NOT “no,” it is YES. Father Barron teaches that Christians are called to moral righteousness and holiness, something which Hitchins (Hitchie-poo) always mocked as ridiculous.

          • CSN

            It seems Fr. Barron is speaking of the righteousness of Martin Luther and not Jesus Christ. He is embracing, without speaking clearly, “Justification” by Marin Luther, which allows that everyone, who says he believes in Jesus Christ, goes to Heaven, no matter how many mortal sins are upon their souls, when they depart this life and enter eternity.

            • Jenn

              you apparently do not understand the words “REASONABLE HOPE”…Fr. Barron never said that nobody is in hell,,,but we can all have a RESONABLE HOPE that everybody is saved…GOT IT NOW???

  • Wendell Clanton

    Excellent juxtaposition, Mr. Shea.

    My 2¢. We can both hope that all will be saved, and we can acknowledge or admit that the souls of the unrepentant do go to hell. Both/and. Fr. Barron articulates well the mercy of God. Mr Voris compellingly advocates for the justice of God. Never mind the two very distinct modes of communication by the two men. We require both perspectives, do we not?

    At the risk of preaching to the choir, the renewed translation of the words of Consecration might prove instructive: “…qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum… .” ‘Pro multis’, i.e., “for (the) many”, are the key words. The previous English paraphrase, ‘for all’, tended to reinforce the notion that Voris rightly challenges. That is, the necessary distinction between the offer of salvation on the one hand, and on the other its acceptance or rejection. Salvation is offered to all, though not all will accept. Many will accept God’s offer, and one can and should understand that Christ is also saying that many will not accept what He offers to all.

  • Brian Ingram

    Fr Barron is guilty of the same charge you have leveled at Voris. In his attack on Dr Ralph Martin, S.T.D. book , ‘Will Many be Saved?”, he wrongly
    equates the level of Papal authoritative teaching of Spe Salvi, with
    Humanae Vitae, and consigns Dr Ralph Martins position which is
    contrary to his, as analogous to dissent. Spe Salvi where Pope
    Benedict XV1 wearing his theologians hat speculates on how many are
    saved. [45-47] with “For the great majority of people – we may
    suppose –…” which is obvious not authoritative teaching either
    by the intent of the author or by the nature of the wording. Many
    encyclicals are important and weighty documents, but it was not the
    intention of the pope to make a binding or infallible teaching in
    this one as opposed to Pope Paul Vi authoritative Humanae Vitae,
    upholding the traditional catholic teaching on contraception

  • Kevin

    So is Mark Shea

  • Jenn

    ok here’s the thing….Michael Voris has basically told all sinners to “go to hell”!!!…how do I know this??…because of his condemnation of those of us who have fought tooth and nail to hold on to a marriage that simply cannot work and found true love in another marriage…and to be honest..i am fed up with all you so called faithful Catholics who claim to have such a wonderful marriage and condemn those of us who tried and failed to hold on to a marriage and found true love somewhere else…I have basically been told that church is not for me!!!…is this how we are supposed to treat our fellow Catholics??…I thought the Church was meant for sinners…I guess the church was meant for only the righteous as I feel so unwelcomed…I thought all sinners were supposed to be prayed for…I guess this is not true…its no wonder why so many churches are closing as those of us who need prayers are basically told to “get the hell out”…and as far as Father Baron goes…HE IS AWESOME…his words on “everybody can have a REASONABLE HOPE that everybody is saved” is not evil…everybody knows that there are souls in hell…but think about the word “REASONABLE” and then ask yourself if you hope that one of your loved ones who has died and lived a sinful life is not in hell…your prayers just may help that soul into heaven….so you CAN HAVE A REASONABLE HOPE….so instead of thinking how wonderful your life is,,,think about those of us who need prayers and stop judging those of us who are divorced and remarried…my first marriage only lasted 8 months…I am now remarried and this marriage has lasted well over a year and I will say that God really had a hand in this marriage as a whole lot of love for God was involved and I thank God for this second marriage!!!

    • Gigahoo

      I’m assuming the you feel ‘criticized’ because you were not able to get an annulment, and I assume that Voris has stated that someone in such a position who remarries is not really married in the eyes of the Church. Correct? Is that it in a nutshell?

      • Jenn

        I cant afford an annulment as the divorce itself cost a fortune…I am fed up with assholes like you who and Voris who feel that sinners only deserve hell…that to me is not showing love for fellow Christians….

        • Gigahoo

          I don’t know exactly know what Voris would say, but as I haven’t stated an opinion about damnation myself, I can see that you are one to attack and jump the gun in a self serving kind of way if you sense disagreement..

          The real question is if you could afford an annulment, would you get it? In this regard the teachings of Jesus are not that ambiguous, and, while I gather it may be granted for you not to accept it. I quote from Matthew 19:

          “”Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife — I am not speaking of an illicit marriage — and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’

          The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’

          But he replied, ‘It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.””
          My opinion is that your real issue is about the above quote and not about damnation.

          • Richard Long

            Did you use your Ouija board to discern Jenn’s conscience, or did an angle of God almighty appear to you in a vision and share the thought, “that she feels criticized because she was not able to get an annulment?”

            Seriously… Unless some might think you are judging this woman with a condemning prejudice, share with the rest of us, how you ACCURATELY came to such a conclusion?

            • Gigahoo

              Conscience knows the difference between good and evil, and requires objective principles in order to inform it. Otherwise, you are talking about feelings, and the Spencerian Principle of Rationalization then applies: give me 5 minutes and I can give a hundred rationals for doing something evil if I don’t want to follow my conscience and principles.

              Feelings can be utterly, utterly deceiving. And whether right or wrong, Jenn has clearly indicated she is following her feelings. You and Jerry are feeding her self-deceptive approach, probably because you two are also take feelings as an authoritive guide to morality and a false substitute for conscience.

              I suggested to Jenn to consider if she could afford an annulment, would she get it? . And I asked her to consider this biblical quote:
              from Matthew 19:

              “”Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife — I am not speaking of an illicit marriage — and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’

              • Richard Long

                Hey dumb ass, I did not ask for an theological diatride from you; you seem to ill equipped for that fight!

                The question I gave you was, “Did you use your Ouija board to discern Jenn’s conscience, or did an angle of God almighty appear to you in a vision and tell you?”

                Simple answer is all that’s needed:
                1) Ouija board
                2) Vision from an Angle of God almighty

                • Gigahoo

                  “Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife — I am not speaking of an illicit marriage — and marries another, is guilty of adultery.”

                  • Richard Long

                    *** NOTE*** This judgmental jackass, Gigahoo, still refuses to state how he knows Jenn’s conscience.

                    As for me, I pray that God brings Jenn countless blessings, and fill her heart with His Good News; I pray also that he converts the hearts of those who are so Judgmental, to be more like the heart of Jesus.

                    • Gigahoo

                      Yours is a response based on feeling and not reality. What insecurity drives you, Jerry, and others to come to the defense of a women who requires no assistance. She can do fine for herself.

                      I do refuse to response to your questions that purports to be concerned with conscience. The whole issue of Jenn’s conscience is a fabrications of your imaginations. Without objective principles of morality, you fall back on your feelings, more controlled by them, so that you can rationalize anything, believe anything, juistify anything. I guess one can say that if you believe all that about me, it must be true for you :-}.

                    • Richard Long

                      Good God… Are you still whining and making noise? I really don’t, nor do I think anyone else cares what you have to say. Have a great life. :-) :-) :-)

                    • Anna

                      Gigahoo, I question whether you know and love Jesus. Your approach with a poster who has obviously been hurt, lacks the compassion of Jesus. Do you think Jesus would speak to Jenn the way you are doing … lacking in any understanding? To discredit Richard’s response because it is based on “feeling” is to discredit Christ’s example in the bible, where time and again he demonstrates mercy and compassion. Jesus constantly defended victims of self-righteous jerks. He didn’t say “she can do fine for herself”. You are indeed in danger of drawing some mighty judgment upon yourself.

          • Gigahoo

            Richard Long, I don’t know what you are talking about. The real question is if she could afford an annulment, would she get it?

          • Jenn

            I think you need to mind your own fucking business…I commented on this to down Michael Voris who basically tells those of us who are divorced and remarried that we are condemned to hell….I don’t see it that way…God loves me and I love HIM…it is up to GOD to say where I am headed…NOT YOU…you start condemning me and you might as well condemn yourself…for it is written..”those who condemn are they themselves condemned”…I don’t condemn Michael Voris…I pray for him…you seem to think that its ok to condemn people…GOD HELP YOU…

            • Gigahoo

              Your replies to my mild comments have made it my business. You must be confusing me with someone else it seems by the emotionality of your replies.

              • HornOrSilk

                You made it your own business, and you are dishonest and avoid questions about yourself. Clear off and let the woman be. We do not know, we are not to judge the eternal condition of her soul; you post quotes like a Protestant who thinks reposting a quote can answer your presumption. Such presumption is indeed sinful as is your activities in this thread.

                • Richard Long

                  AMEN!

                • Gigahoo

                  I am reposting a quote to stay on topic. All else is your presumption. I thank you for interjecting.

            • MDK66

              Nobody is to be prohibited from the annulment process on account of a lack of money. Just tell them you don’t have the money for it. They will still go through the process for you. They have to.

            • SINGLECATHOLIC123

              Nobody is judging as to where someone goes. We are just saying that you need to follow the teachings of the church and you cannot receive communion if you are in mortal sin. It does not mean that you cannot go to church.

    • CSN

      You may have tried to make your marriage work, but that doesn’t entitle you to another. Henry VIII thought he was entitled to another marriage, and was forbidden by the Pope to enter into another union, and was excommunicated for doing so. Do you think you have the right to remarry, which is adultery, just because something didn’t work out between you and your spouse? What part of “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”, do you not understand?

      • Jenn

        I don’t care what anybody says to me about this…my first husband fucked me over big time…I thank God for this second marriage as HE had a lot to do with it. You need to understand why people do things and the reasons for it before you start condemning ..besides…I am not the one who even wanted the divorce..I felt I had no choice as he got all pissy about me not granting it to him…he told me if I didn’t give him the divorce then he was going to make my life a living hell…also…he remarried shortly after the divorce from me…I didn’t want the divorce…so yes I feel like I have the right to remarry as I still say that God had a big part in it. That first marriage only lasted 8 months…right now I have been remarried for almost 2 years…so fuck you….people like us who have remarried don’t need condemnation…we need love, prayers and support which you don’t seem to want to offer along with that asshole Gigahoo and others who act like they are so friggin holy…its disgusting how you people act towards sinners when you yourselves are just as much sinners….also…Henry VIII divorced because he fell in love with somebody else…I wasn’t in love with anybody else so I do not fall into the same category as Henry VIII…I didn’t mess things up like Henry VIII did…so go condemn somebody else but do keep in mind that those who condemn are they themselves condemned…and just so you know…I am not the one who says that…GOD SAID THAT…

        • MDK66

          You’re allowed to remarry only after going through the annulment process to see if your first marriage was “what God has joined together.” If it is determined your first marriage was valid, then you are living in a state of adultery, and it would be better for your eternal soul if you no longer had “marital” relations with the man you are currently living with. If, on the other hand, it is determined your first marriage was not valid–and that may be the case, you really need to find out–then you should have your second marriage convalidated in the Church.

          As for your prior message, temper that foul tongue. Nobody likes to read stuff like that. And Henry 8 wanted an heir, which his first wife was unable to provide, so what’s a king to do? Get himself a more fertile wife.

          • SINGLECATHOLIC123

            The Bishops and our Holy Father (The Pope) should discipline this priest. Father Barron is leading many souls astray. He is definitely not a holy priest.

            • chezami

              Fr. Barron was quoting Pope Benedict. You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Gigahoo

          I do not see that much difference in your logic between Henry VIII’s and yourself if Heny VIII divorced for love. For love, you have remarried.

          You are in a difficult predicament as you are in love and don’t want to acknowledge the church’s teaching. However, there is hope for you, because you have not tried the annulment process. You say because of the cost. However, cost will not be an impediment because Pope Francis has decreed that economics should not be a barrier to seeking an annulment. Your first husband does not sound like a nice guy, therefore you may have a chance of getting an annulment.

          • Jenn

            I did not remarry right away…nor did I fall in love with somebody else….my first husband left me because I had a son born of a rape and he couldn’t handle that…it wasn’t long after the divorce that he married somebody else…..it took a lot of prayers and sacrifice before I met the man I am with right now….God gave this man to me as a gift and nobody is going to take God’s gift away from me….

          • Jenn

            I DID NOT REMARRY FOR LOVE….IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO ACCEPT THIS MAN INTO MY LIFE BECAUSE I COULDNT TRUST ANY MAN AFTER THE WAY MY FIRST HUSBAND TREATED ME….AFTER MUCH PRAYER AND SACRIFICE GOD GAVE ME THIS MAN AND I WILL NOT LET ANYBODY TRY TO TAKE GOD’S GIFT AWAY FROM ME….

    • SINGLECATHOLIC123

      Being Catholic means you have to follow the teachings of the church. If you refuse to follow the churches teachings then do not attack faithful Catholics who do so. Father Barron is WRONG and should not be planting seeds in peoples heads that people do not go to hell.

    • Anna

      Hi Jenn – sorry you’ve had a hard go of things – I also am divorced and have yet to seek an annulment. Even though I’ve been let down by some priests over the years, God always led me to a few good priests and lots of devout laypersons to model Christ to me and help me grow in faith. The church indeed is meant for nothing but sinners! Keep looking and praying and the Holy Spirit will lead you to just the right person. God loves you and so do I.

      • Jenn

        thank you for your kind words Anna…I shall keep the faith and give all I have to God because I Love HIM with all my heart, soul and mind :)

    • http://www.fromtheabbey.com/ Jeffrey Arrowood

      Anna,

      The Church is for sinners, but her mission is to guide us out of sin toward the true goodness of God. The Church’s process of declarations of annulment is one of those guides. It protects the sanctity of sacramental marriage and leads us to take the vocation of marriage and family life seriously.

      The fact that your first marriage failed is no reason for anyone to judge you. The Church asks that your first marriage be examined to see if it was sacramental. If elements of a sacramental marriage are missing, then the marriage is declared annulled – meaning that the sacramental bond never took place. If the elements of a sacramental marriage are present then the first marriage would be binding on you, meaning that even if you are separated you should not seek another marital union out of respect for God’s power in the sacrament to bond husband and wife together. This can be a hard sacrifice to make, but it is made out of love and respect for God. People who make this sacrifice should be held up and supported by the Church.

      I don’t know if you have sought an annulment or not, but if you haven’t I encourage you to approach a good, loving priest about it. If one priest blocks your way, seek out another. There is no guarantee you’ll be granted a declaration of nullity, but it’s the first step toward seeking God’s will.

      Hope that helps! God bless your desire to love the Lord!

  • CSN

    I agree with Michael Voris. This Priest is stating untruths entirely throughout his talk. St. Augustine never said all people were damned except for a minor few. Nor did St. Thomas Aquinas. This Priest is quoting the heretic “Origen”. Yes, the heretic “Origen”. If you read the “Four Last Things; Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.” you’ll see that there is a vast number of lost. Look at our world today. How many do you think will be saved? Sin has no place in Heaven. Purgatory is only granted to those who seek forgiveness before they die, and we don’t commit mortal sins and expect to see Heaven unless we die with perfect contrition, and receive absolution. Read your Catechism and you’ll get it straight, but the one before the Second Vatican Council. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote a booklet called “Hell and It’s Torments”, and St. Alphonsus Liguori, another Doctor of the Church, wrote a booklet called “What Will Hell be Like?” They inexpensive booklets and you’ll get an idea of what the church teaches on the subject. We know the modernist Church has taken on the tenets of Martin Luther, who believes in “Justification”, or that everyone is saved. The True Catholic Church, just never behaved that way, nor did they ever state such nonsense.
    The Virgin Mother of God told the three Children of Fatima, that souls were falling into Hell like snowflakes. Has anyone counted how many snowflakes can fall in one single snowfall? She also gave them the vision of Hell, where they saw the forms of lost souls bouncing around in the flames with horrid cries and frightful devils surrounding them in the figures of wild beasts. Hell is very real, and one should read about it, if they think they’re not going there, when they commit mortal sins without contrition. Those are the facts! Nothing New!

    • SINGLECATHOLIC123

      I agree with you. Michael Voris is following church teaching and it amazes me to see how people are so hateful towards him for telling the truth. If people do not like the truth then too bad. if they are not living their lives according to the teachings of the church they cannot receive holy communion.

      • chezami

        It is Church to teaching to claim that helping desperate children is a secret plot by bishops to promote abortion? Do you believe that slander is church teaching?

  • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

    You might as well also rebuke Pope St. John Paul II for saying (in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”) that those who posit a legitimate hope that all will be saved are basically universalist heretics.

    Michael Voris is absolutely correct on this: suggesting that Hell might be eternally empty of humans after all is one of the most dangerous possible heresies, and should be condemned with all vigor.

    That video isn’t the only spot where Fr. Barron publicizes those views, by the way. He also has published articles in which he blatantly states he believes hell might be empty of humans.

    • HornOrSilk

      Pope St Paul II DID NOT say those who posit such hope are universalists — he in fact, showed in many of his statements such hope. And no, it is not a heresy to hope for universal salvation. It is a possibility which saints have held. What is a heresy is universalism which is not the same thing as hope for universal salvation. Universalism is the denial of free will to say what must happen. Hope for universal salvation does not say what must happen, it is not fatalism. The odd thing is many who combat the hope end up fatalists themselves, falling for the heresy which they think they reject!

      “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we
      are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether
      or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General
      Audience — July 28, 1999)

      The silence of the Church [on the subject of universal salvation] is,
      therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when
      Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “it would be better for that man if he
      had never been born” (Mt 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to
      eternal damnation. (Crossing the Threshold of Hope).

      The text says the Church is silent. That is where hope lies. Silence is NOT denial, nor affirmation. Which is what hope is. It does not say this will happen, it says we do not know. But he makes it clear, we are not assured of the damnation of Judas.

      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

        No, the universalist heresy does not require a refutation of free will. It only requires a belief in the non existence (directly by saying it is abolished or indirectly by saying it is empty) of an eternal hell.

        The “whether or which” both refer to the same thing: *individuals*, e.g. Judas, as you mention. He does not mean “whether *any* human is there,” as you interpret him to mean. The word *any* is necessary for your interpretation to be correct, but it is not there.

        And again, if your interpretation was correct, then JPII would be a bit schizophrenic (which he’s not), for he said (just before the quote you provide… ) “In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the “final apocatastasis,” according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel He speaks clearly of *those* who *will* go to eternal punishment”

        • HornOrSilk

          Balthasar does not deny the existence of hell. Those who hope for the salvation of all do not deny hell. If you study the theology, it is fatalism which is denied, which is how apokatastasis is rejected by the saints. It is the fatalistic ideology which is the problem. And Pope St John Paul II more than once promoted the hope, which is itself even in the catechism itself. The problem is YOU falsely interpret the Pope and then make strawmen, showing very little understanding of eschatological theology. Or what the Pope has said. If you read the people you criticized instead of showing no understanding of what they wrote, you would see they state hell is a necessary teaching, but ignoring the context of the will, the way prophetic utterances work in the conditional (See Jonah) is why you fail to understand the Pope and those you misrepresent. Study Balthasar. READ HIM. Not just “Dare We Hope” but also his Theo-Drama, esp. 4 and 5. Hell is a real possibility, and if someone fulfills the condition for hell, they WILL go to hell. We do not know if anyone fulfills the condition, and as the catechism says, with God anything is possible. YOU DENY THE CATECHISM.

          • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

            Yes, Fatalism is a problem. No, Fatalism is not the only problem.

            Yes, some prophecy is conditional, no it isn’t all conditional (there are three types: denunciation, foreknowledge, and revelation of absolute decree). Nevertheless it is not merely by prophecy that we know hell is not empty.

            Balthasar is not Magisterium. He’s not even the Queen of Heaven, who (by the way) insists in each of her apparitions — including the fully approved ones — that there are real human beings in hell now, and more are going there. I never mentioned Balthasar; I’m talking about Barron.

            Your condemnation of me that I “deny the Catechism” is funny. You seem to think that whenever the words “universal salvation” are used, that is an assertion of your own erroneous viewpoint. Universal salvation means it is extended to all, not that it is received by all. Just because “with God all things are possible” does not mean “with God all things happen.” All things can’t happen. 1+1 can’t be 2 and 3. We can’t reasonably hope hell is empty if we know people have gone there (by the way, the sensus fidelium — the unviersal testimony of the faithful throughout the ages — is infallible, which absolutely holds that people are in hell.) just because we can’t know about the eternal damnation of individual souls themselves. That line of reasoning is as laughable as pointing to a glass of water and saying “We can reasonably hope that glass is empty, because we cannot possibly know with certainty which H2O molecules are in there”

            One of the reasons the Church chose to change the words of consecration of the Chalice from “for all” to “for many” was to help people like you see the truth. Please don’t close your eyes to it just because it is uncomfortable. There is no way you will be zealous enough for your salvation, the salvation of your loved ones, and the salvation of the whole world if you continue to think hell might be completely empty.

            • SINGLECATHOLIC123

              Say a prayer for Father Barron. He needs lots of prayer.

              • Jenn

                I will pray that Father Barron keeps up his good works…He is AWESOME!

                • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                  Yes, I will pray the same. And in general he is great. But he’s dead wrong on this particular issue.

                  • Jenn

                    if the Good Fr. Barron is wrong then why pray for those who have passed on in this life as the prayers will then be useless…the idea is that when you pray you pray for those who have passed on so they can get to heaven..

                    • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                      Goodness Jenn, I am not saying everyone who dies goes to hell! I do believe that most go to Purgatory.

                    • Jenn

                      I do aswell Daniel…you are the only person so far in all the times I have commented on different sites that has actually used the place “PURGATORY”….thank you… :)

    • Joseph

      How do you know that Fr. Barron isn’t just trying to really piss off the Devil. Imagine the Devil after watching that? Grrrr… what?!!!! WHATTTTT!!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!

  • SINGLECATHOLIC123

    The Author and people who are responding to this article defending Father Barron are INCORRECT. It is a heresy to claim that hell does not exist and all go to heaven. To mislead the faithful and indicate that nobody goes to hell is the same as saying there is no hell. I am a Catholic and Father Barron’s teaching that there may be nobody in Hell is incorrect and goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Jesus himself said that Hell exist and he said there will be gnashing of teeth. He made it very clear that people go to hell. If someone dies in a state of mortal sin then they go to hell. Many of the Churches Saints and also private revelation approved by the church reinforces that there is a hell and many people go there. We cannot judge who goes to hell because that is God’s decision. The fact that we cannot say who is there does not mean that nobody goes there. Father Barron needs prayers because he is leading many souls astray by his dangerous false teachings. Please pray for Father Barron.

    • chezami

      Fr. Barron claims no such thing.

      • SINGLECATHOLIC123

        Yes, he is implying to the faithful that there may be no people in Hell.
        He contradicts Christ and the Saints of the Catholic Church.

        • chezami

          No. He’s not. Learn to read.

          • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

            Yes he is :-). (I’m pretty sure “SingleCatholic” can read, but I *know* that I can, so I figured I’d chime in)

    • Jenn

      you apparently didn’t listen to the Good Father Barron…you need to understand what he means when he say “REASONABLE HOPE”…he never said that nobody is in hell…he just said that we can have a REASONABLE HOPE that nobody is there…pay attention…its like me saying I can have a REASONABLE HOPE that people are in Heaven….we don’t know who is in Heaven other than God,Jesus, Mary and all the angels and saints…nobody knows for certain who is in Heaven….but we can have a REASONABLE HOPE that our loved ones are in Heaven…

  • FrAntipodes

    It’s wonderful to read through the comments to this story and see the point made by Shea proven by what is read therein

  • miriam murray

    The approved apparition of our Lady of Fatima showed the children Hell where poor sinners go, and they were falling in like snowflakes.

    • HornOrSilk

      1) apparition being approved doesn’t mean we have to believe it
      2) the interpretation of what was shown is in question. It is a warning, just like Jonah.

    • Joseph

      Perhaps it was snowing particularly hard that day, but on other days it’s dry? Perhaps that’s at the final judgement when all humans since the fall are judged before Christ and the chaff is thrown into the everlasting fire. How many trillions of people have existed since the fall. Perhaps that snowfall only represents a small percentage of all human beings? Do you know exactly what that vision meant?

  • peterj2226 .

    I have not heard Voris’ views on the subject but I have come across Fr. Barron’s teaching. I believe that he badly misrepresents Pope Benedict’s teaching in Spe Salvi by claiming that the Pope stated with great authority that only a handful of people go to hell and that the bulk of humanity goes to purgatory. I read the sections in Spe Salvi and the Pope makes some vague suppositions and poses questions which he does not go on to answer. I can see how these words could be extrapolated to form the views that Fr. Barron has adopted, but I cannot see how they can be set against the definitive and very authoritative statements of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas.

    Fr. Barron’s teaching undermines the doctrine of original sin and the critical need for baptism for salvation. It’s hard to see how the church can regain its fervour for preaching the gospel when we have these ideas being advanced.

    The teaching of Fr. Barron borders on heretical and is perilous to souls. It directly opposes the churches great commission.

    We should all read Dr. Ralph Martin’s book “Will many be saved?” where he states quite correctly and in a fashion that nobody could fairly dispute that Pope Benedict’s statements in Spe Salvi ‘require clarification’.

    • Daniel

      Amen to what you said. Also you rightly pointed out Pope Benedict’s Spe Salvi did leave some imagination of universal salvation but Fr. Barron has gone far enough to be declared a heretic and his teachings are against all the saints in the Church history who deal with this issue and of course against the teachings of Christ himself in the Gospels. It would serve the souls well to stick with the teaching of Christ, the doctors of the Church and saints. But one should not be surprised if we look at the history of the Church, for example, the era of Arianism in which 80% of the Bishops were Arian heretics. The problem we face now is you can not simple single out a bishop or a priest is a modernism heretic because the heresy of modernism is much more hidden or hard to pinpoint like a mercury yet more poisonous than all the heresies in the Church history combined. Let’s pray for our Church and our Pope.

      God Bless!

      • Joseph

        I’m not going to defend Fr. Barron. I like him, but I don’t have *folk heroes* (learned that lesson a long time ago)… but, did you just call him a heretic?

  • Daniel

    Which part of “Many are called, few are chosen” Fr. Barron does not get? Yes there are more than 1 billion Catholics are called(that means Baptized) but few are saved in the end though we can not judge who would be saved. But we know for most adult Catholics who reach the age of reason, that means our family members, our friends, our priests and bishops, and ourselves included, few of us would choose the narrow gate and be saved in the end. Fr. Barron should read St. Leonard of Port Maurice’s sermon on “the fewness of those are saved” in which he dealt with the issue based on Christ’s teachings, the teachings of the Latin Church Father and the teachings of the Eastern Church Fathers. He was called the Saint of Station of Cross because he popularized the devotion.

    • Joseph

      I don’t think Mark stated anywhere that Fr. Barron is right or wrong. I think he stated that the question of how crowded hell is doesn’t happen to be defined in Catholic doctrine. No one really knows. If there was a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching on the contents of hell, then I’m sure the first to be excommunicated would have been Dante, who had placed popes and priests in several rings of his version of torturous hell.

      • Daniel

        “I think he stated that the question of how crowded hell is doesn’t happen to be defined in Catholic doctrine. No one really knows. If there was a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching on the contents of hell”

        It is a doctrinal teaching based on the teaching of Christ and all the doctors and saints of the Church, both Latin and Eastern. “Judas is in perdition” is not dogmatically defined teaching like “Assumption of the Virgin Mary” but it does not mean it is not a Truth because it is 100% clear when Our Lord said “and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition”(some priests with agenda did say that Judas is in heaven now because the Church never proclaimed anyone in Hell so the average Catholic was thinking I would be going to heaven too just like some stories on MIRACLES of last minute death bed conversion. Those are rare that is why they are called MIRACLES. Most of us are like the rich man described by Our Lord Himself live a life according to our will and end up in destruction).

        God Bless!

        • vaderof3

          I don’t know what’s wrong with these theologians! You don’t have to be a theologian to know whether hell is empty or not, it’s there for all of us to see… It’s in the N-E-W T-E-S-T-A-M-E-N-T. Jesus blatantly explained it to us… *hint: wide gate, narrow gate”. Do I really have to rely on Theologians to understand this???

          So to make it simple, on this hell issue, Michael Voris is right and Fr. Barron, Hans urs von Balthazar (…and Mark Shea) are wrong, and why do I think that? Is it because I like Michael Voris and dislike Fr. Baron?? Nooo. It’s because I BELIEVE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND HE IS CERTAINLY NOT A LIAR.

          Sheesh!!

          • Daniel

            Now the more I read I find out that technically Fr. Barron might not be a pure (material) heretic because he said 98% would be saved while JP II taught ALL would be saved, not only Catholics but pagans. Voris and CMTV defend Vatican II and attack SSPX because Voris claimed an unnamed Cardinal personal told him SSPX is schismatic. I used to support CMTV not after they relentlessly attack Catholics who are faithful to the Tradition of the Church. Even Bishop Schneider whom Voris interviewed even said SSPX should not be asked to change anything before given the full canonical status after he visited SSPX seminaries on behalf of the Holy See. And Voris attacked other Catholic faithful media like Remnant and Catholic Family News. I don’t know the cause of change of Voris and CMTV. But they are worse than Catholic Answers.
            http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/?m=0

  • Samuel

    Some of the comments I have read regarding Fr. Robert Barron are simply atrocious. Fr. Robert Barron does an amazing amount of good for the Church, especially in the area of new evangelisation. Yes, the specific comments made, in this one particular video, should probably be amended, so as to avoid potential confusion of good Catholics, but, to respond by smearing his name, and thus calling into question the legitimacy of all his good works, is certainly doing more damage than good. Michael Voris has a large and passionate following. Why should he use his God given influence to throw dirt on a man who has obviously given his life over to the service of God. I agree, there is a great need to preserve Catholic orthodoxy in all teaching, but to publicly denounce a man for a single error among an ocean of good works, is to cause unnecessary division in the communion of the Church. I hate to “proof text,” but perhaps before publicly smearing a man’s reputation, especially a fellow Catholic, it might be wise to have a read of Gal 6:1. “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted.” I wouldn’t even say Fr. Barron has committed a trespass, because I honestly think he most probably unaware of his error. How many of you wrote a gentle letter of correction to Fr. Barron, before publicly announcing him as a heretic? Turn your zeal to fighting those who are really causing harm to the Church, not to those who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with you.

  • vaderof3

    Mark Shea,

    I don`t know what`s your problem with Michael Voris. He is a rough guy, but I can see that he is sincere about his faith. Your way might not be compatible with his, but that`s ok as long as we put our focus on God.

    Now, don`t agree with me, because my theological education is not as deep as yours, even Tim Staples (I think you know him very well) admits that Fr. Barron is wrong in his article: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-there-souls-in-hell-right-now, and I also agree with Tim.

    Please, as Christians, we have to stick together and defend the truth. The muslim are taking over the world and here we are, fighting among ourselves? Wait until the whole Europe becomes Islam, and then (remember this), it’s going to be easy for them to destroy the Vatican. So, start evangelizing the real truth! Peace, brother!

    • Joseph

      Mark Shea,
      I don’t know what’s your problem with ISIS. They’re rough guys, but I can see that they are sincere about their faith.
      … because… their sincerity, as authentic as it may be, is displaced and *wrong*, perhaps?

  • Joseph

    But… but… he twirls his pencil so… sensuously…
    .
    I always thought it was a Protestant phenomenon to want as many people roasting in hell as possible… except your family members, close friends, and acquaintances… except for those who you *just don’t know if they’re ‘saved’* or get arrested for drug possession or are slackers who aren’t financially successful.
    .
    I haven’t watched an episode of ‘The Vortex’ since 2008. Has Pope Francis been sucked in yet?

  • vaderof3

    Joseph,

    I can sense your sarcasm there.

    I don’t know you, but I’d rather believe in Saints who had been ‘granted’ with the vision of hell, such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. Padre Pio, St. John Bosco, St. Faustina and the three children of Fatima. And the bible also said that most people will ‘choose’ the wide gate of hell. I personally don’t know who will go to hell and who will go to heaven, because it’s entirely God’s decision. Do not forget that God is not only merciful but He is also just.

    Let me put it this way, if there`s an exam coming next week, and there are two students taking it. Let’s assume both are smart students and both don`t know whether the exam is going to be difficult or easy, but each has different attitude towards it.

    The first student treat the exam seriously, he feels unsafe, he always think that only a few will pass, and he hopes to be part of the few. What will he do? For sure, he will study as hard as he could, day in and day out. When he feels he knows everything, he started to doubt himself, and bury his head deeper into his books, because he would rather keep his insecurity to make him better and more prepared.

    The second student doesn’t treat the exam seriously. He relies on the notion that the professor is a kind and gentle person and would definitely pass most of the students in the class. And as a smart student, he will definitely be included in that group.

    With these two different attitudes, who will have a bigger chance of passing the exam? What if the professor’s kindness got nothing to do with it, because he wants to be fair to all? I am not saying that the second student is definitely going to fail, but I can say for sure that the first student has a higher chance of success.

    By saying God is merciful, thus He is going to let most of us in the heaven is the same as not taking God seriously. That is why we have to repent, go to confession regularly and strive to live a pious life, because we are all called to be saints. Amen.

    • Samuel

      The second student is presuming. If we take that analogy into the real world, and salvation is at stake, he’s committing the sin of presumption. One of the two “unforgivable” sins against the Spirit. He’s not passing, he’s doomed!

      • vaderof3

        Right on, Samuel! I am glad you got the point. God bless you.

        So, now stop arguing, and go to confession and sin no more. We are all sinners, and we don’t know if we’re good enough to go to heaven. We shouldn’t presume to know what’s God going to do or who’s God going to choose for His kingdom.

  • THEETERNALTRUTH

    Lots of Fundie trolls. You remind me of the jealous son in the parable of the prodigal son. Your only hatred of this hope is your own ego. Hear it again EGO!!! You just want to wallow in your self righteousness, and therefore need this disgusting wish that you can be the cosmic 1%, even if that causes the rest to suffer. But it is not surprising that this justification of the 1% of wealth was in fact created by a narcissistic Fundamentalist John Calvin, and is still supported by disgusting Fundies like yourselves. Examples? John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson. All greedy corporatists who believe in the same Fundie crap of both economic and spiritual elitism where they can hog the glory all for themselves. You are just reductionists, where you reduce God to nothing but a Cosmic Politician. But why should I be surprised? You are just wallowing in your own ego, and therefore reducing the whole truth of existence to a kind of cosmic fascism where the cosmic elites are rewarded and the nice guys are punished. Yep, every single person I met who claims to be part of this cosmic elite are the most disgusting, intolerant, arrogant, hateful, self interested, and egotistical maniacs. Which sounds more like hell. You are all creating your own hells by your own shameful behavior. You blaspheme the true God by creating idols that your own small mind can grasp at. Therefore you are the most horribly satanic of people. By your own horrible ego’s you are bowing down and idolizing Demons. DEMONS, DEMONS!!!! Hear it again? Didnt think so. Learn it and start worshipping the TRUE GOD BEYOND ALL COMPREHENSION, and not your small minded belief, and hateful misanthropy. By your own misanthropic degradation of humanity to the class of the damned, you blasphemed the creator to claiming that he made mostly garbage. You should be ashamed to even call yourselves Christians, let alone even belief in God. You are worse than Materialistic atheists. You worship ideologies, not the very truth that was right in front of you, like the Pharisees. You go and thump the bible but then spit on the very man who is the I AM who walked on earth. Then you crucified him because he offered you a truth that will blow your ego away. You could not even handle being in the presence of this truth. But the man of truth the Christ completely defeated your Pharisaic cult for 500 years, and by your Pharisaism, your whole city of Jerusalem was destroyed. Because of your own ego. In the history of humanity, no small minded bigot was ever executed. Only the people who challenged the elitism. Its no wonder a prophet is stoned by the people. No wonder Socrates was executed. He showed truth beyond some brutish pagan gods, and what did they do? THEY EXECUTED HIM. What happened when Martin Luther King Jr. broke down petty racial boundaries? HE WAS SHOT. Meanwhile, the disgustinge Westboro Baptist Church that teaches all hate and some Calvinist god never got so much but constant internet persecution. WHY? People fear truth, not a bunch of petty lies.

    • Samuel

      I’m confused THEETERNALTRUTH. Throughout your entire rant, you only ever used only pronouns, so I’m left wondering who this was actually directed to? Or did it not really have an audience? Were you just thinking your hatred out loud?
      You have an impressive vernacular my friend, I suggest you add the word “love” to your repertoire.
      Peace…(<– that one might help too)

    • RufusChoate

      Apparently “THEETERNALTRUTH” has left the building and his disqus account is moribund. Not much of shelf life for bile?

      p.s. Martin Luther King was on the path to complete irrelevance when he was killed by a publicity seeking sociopath. The Civil Rights “movement” predated him by over 90 years and it was only the Racist Democrat party that stopped it during the early part of the 20th Century.

      I was never quite sure how the Left’s apotheosis of a Baptist Preacher with a tawdry personal life made such an impression on Catholics.

  • Jenn

    MICHAEL VORIS IS AN ASSHOLE WHO DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE SINNER…HE IS ONE OF THE RIGHTEOUS IDIOTS WHO CLAIM THE CHURCH BELONGS TO THOSE WHO ARE SINLESS LIKE HIM….HE NEEDS TO “GROW A PAIR” AND REALIZE THAT HE IS ALSO A SINNER…ALL WHO LOVE THE CHURCH NEED TO FIGHT THESE RIGHTEOUS ONES AND CLAIM THE CHURCH BACK AS THE CHURCH RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE SINNER…

  • Jenn

    THE GOOD FATHER BARRON IS 100% CORRECT…HE KNOWS THE CHURCH IS MEANT FOR THE SINNER AND NOT THE RIGHTEOUS…MICHAEL VORIS IS KILLING THE CHURCH LITTLE BY LITTLE….ITS NO WONDER SO MANY ARE LEAVING THE CHURCH NOWADAYS AND I CANT SAY I BLAME THEM..

  • Nobody

    The Council of Trent pronounces:

    “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

    This is dogma. The only reason that Balthasar’s “theories” are not outright heresy in regard to this passage from Trent is that their contradiction depends upon a contingent fact over whose truth the Church has no authority to decree dogmatically. Then again, a denial of this contingent fact is as patently false as denying that human beings by nature walk upon two legs.

    That is to say, it is without question unreasonable to hold that every man who has ever lived died having received the sacrament of baptism, either by water or by desire: therefore it is impossible to hold to the Catholic faith and at the same time maintain this “reasonable hope” that all men are saved.

    The “choice” of which the father speaks is presented to humans here and now during their lifetimes: choose to die in the state of grace by being baptised and keeping Christ’s commandments. It is an OBJECTIVE fact that most reject this offer and die in original or mortal sin.

    • Cliff

      Actually, it’s “unreasonable” to think that all men are saved. Isn’t that obvious throughout the New Testament?

  • Daniel

    So is “All men are saved” a heresy or not?

    • chezami

      Irrelevant since it is not what Bishop-elect Barron says.

      • chezami

        When he’s gone, the roaring base of racist, misogynist dunces who made him front runner will still be there driving the GOP on to the rocks or departing with him to form a purer, stupider party and split the vote. It’s well past time the GOP face the fact that they *made* his base and are 100% responsible for this Monster.

      • Daniel

        You are right he did not say that. But is it a heresy?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X