Question about Father Robert Barron.

[Grasshopper]

I've asked one question throughout this whole controversy that no supporter of Fr. Barron has been willing to answer.  By what authority does Fr. Barron dictate that Christ's Ascension has nothing to do whatsoever with a journey skyward? 
Last time I checked it was the Magisterium of the Church that set limits on what the faithful were not to believe. 

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. (1) "This whole controversy" seems to exist primarily in your mind. I haven't heard anyone else complaining about it. (2) Father Barron isn't "dictating" anything (in the sense of requiring all Catholics to believe or not believe something). He simply made a statement. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[Gerard]

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

I don't.  You may want to sweep heresy under the rug, but that's your decision. 

(1) "This whole controversy" seems to exist primarily in your mind.

It only "seems" that way to you.  But you're wrong. 

I haven't heard anyone else complaining about it.

How many people do you need to hear from in order for what he said to be wrong? 

(2) Father Barron isn't "dictating" anything (in the sense of requiring all Catholics to believe or not believe something).

He wears a collar and has a shingle.  And he certainly is dictating when he speaks as a priest and states that the Ascension has "absolutely nothing" to do with what the Church teaches as a historical event. 

  He simply made a statement. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

But you seem to care enough to feebly defend him and put a lid on exposing his heretical beliefs.  And by all means continue to sleep.   Leave the rest of us who care to go about our business.   

[Old Salt]

I am officially complaining about Fr Barron.

While his RCIA catechism is largely orthodox [I have read the whole thing] he is misrepresenting Church teaching on Hell and the Ascension.
I am losing some sleep over it since my father in law has no choice to come into the Church but by studying this book.

[Grasshopper]

Go get 'em, cowboy! Personally, I will leave accusations and convictions of heresy to the Church. Such things are far above my station as a layman. If you want to be "the Catholic vigilante", good luck.

[Old Salt]

Go get 'em, cowboy! Personally, I will leave accusations and convictions of heresy to the Church. Such things are far above my station as a layman. If you want to be "the Catholic vigilante", good luck.

I am not saying he is in heresy, but what do you call it when someone teaches that the Ascension did not take place as the Church teaches it took place?
And the same person teaches against Christ in scripture, that it is a distinct possibility that all are saved?
This might not be heresy, but what is it called?

[Grasshopper]

Go get 'em, cowboy! Personally, I will leave accusations and convictions of heresy to the Church. Such things are far above my station as a layman. If you want to be "the Catholic vigilante", good luck.

I am not saying he is in heresy, but what do you call it when someone teaches that the Ascension did not take place as the Church teaches it took place?
And the same person teaches against Christ in scripture, that it is a distinct possibility that all are saved?
This might not be heresy, but what is it called?

Well, I was responding more to Gerard than to you, but I don't think Father Barron is outright denying any Catholic teachings. If you read through this entire thread, you will see that there are different ways to interpret his statement about the Ascension. Gerard is interpreting it in the worst possible way, and I don't think that's necessary. And I'm not alone -- the majority of posters in this thread seem to agree with me. Likewise with his statements about Hell. I don't think he has ever declared that Hell is empty -- only that we are allowed to hope that it might be. And I don't see anything wrong with that. In any case, these are points that can be argued, but I think accusing Father Barron of heresy -- as Gerard is doing -- is far too extreme a response. And I think it takes a lot of balls -- certainly more than I have -- for any layman to accuse any priest of heresy. That's for the Church to do, not for us.

[jovan66102]

I don't think he has ever declared that Hell is empty -- only that we are allowed to hope that it might be.

So you are saying that we are allowed to hope that Satan and his demons are in heaven?

[Gerard]

Go get 'em, cowboy! Personally, I will leave accusations and convictions of heresy to the Church. Such things are far above my station as a layman. If you want to be "the Catholic vigilante", good luck.

I know that's the mentality that's been inculcated in many Catholics in order to corral them but in the Catholicism I learned, to instruct the ignorant and rebuke the sinner are Spiritual Works of Mercy and as a good Jesuit told me when you warn people about the bad doctrine coming from priests, that's an act of charity. 

[Gerard]

Interesting also to note that Fr. Barron when confronted with his denial of Adam as a "literal figure" did not choose to reply when he was corrected. 

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-robert-barron-denies-that-adam-was.html

"Fr. Jim Tucker, blogmaster of Dappled Things: a popular site that was discontinued in 2008, wrote in the combox of the same video on a Word on Fire web page:


If we are not to read Adam as a literal person, but only a theological construct, then as we read St Paul's description of Jesus as the "New Adam", then Jesus becomes a theological construct. Yet, Jesus is God incarnate, God in the flesh, very much a real person. So, St. Paul's comparison brings out the fact that sin - sin which is very real in our lives even today - sin comes into the world through the choice of a real person Adam, so that redemption - a very real necessity for our lives even today - redemption comes through a real person: Jesus the Christ. (3-4-11)


Unfortunately, Fr. Barron did not reply, even though this is his own site, for his outreach apostolate. Fr. Barron's view on this issue is very troubling indeed, and an extremely serious error. Here is what St. Paul stated about the historical Adam and original sin:..."

[Grasshopper]

I don't think he has ever declared that Hell is empty -- only that we are allowed to hope that it might be.

So you are saying that we are allowed to hope that Satan and his demons are in heaven?

No, I'm not saying that, and I seriously doubt that Father Barron is, either. But I see nothing wrong with hoping that there are no humans in Hell. The Fatima prayer does say "Lead all souls to Heaven." However, I'm not really interested in speculating about who's in Hell, or how many are there. My primary concern is that I don't go there.