The implication seems to be that there are other 'unprivileged' saviours. Who are these? Mohammed? Confucius? Buddha? Odin? Zeus? Pachamama? Good luck with all them!
That old canard about "they are all good wise teachers". No! Jesus was very clear. The Way the Truth the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father but through Him. Unambiguous. Clear as crystal.
The above mentioned e-mail was as follows: "It seems everyone is fawning over Bishop Barron's statement on the Synod. To me, his statement just amplifies how (and why) things have become so messed up in the Church. This part is the crux of it all, imho: Bishop Barron: "Conspicuous by their absence in the texts on mission were references to sin, grace, redemption, cross, resurrection, eternal life, and salvation, and this represents a real danger. For in point of fact, the primary mission of the Church is to declare the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and to invite people to place themselves under his Lordship." Here he identifies everything to do with our Faith, and says none of these things are even mentioned in the synodal texts. And really, with all due respect to his eminence, isn't the mission of the Church to spread the Good News of salvation, and how we obtain the salvation of our SOULS? He kinda skips over the whole Passion narrative here, doesn't he? Christ, but without the Cross.... So if the salvation of souls is the main goal, what then? How do we obtain this? Imho, it's only by the Grace of God. Sin leads to destruction and eternal fire, while grace restores us to the friendship of God, but we can't obtain that grace unless we do the "work". A few years ago, I was struggling terribly with scruples. Much like dear "Sanctus" is now, God love him. I went to confession to a priest who was here for a while from India, and he said to me, "you have a problem; you don't truly believe that God has forgiven you." I was dumbfounded, but he was right in what he was saying. He asked me to explain to him what grace is, so I said something like a free gift from God. That's all I knew. He gave me no penance, but explained to me everything we have is by the Grace of God and asked that I spend time considering this. Everything from life itself to the house I live in, etc etc. After some time, I slowly began to understand what he meant....and the scruples slowly departed. Then the joy started to creep into my heart. Everything good comes from God's grace. Does that mean I'm perfect? Uh, NO. But if I don't do the work to root out and conquer my own vices, that joy will never be known. And no one can do that work except myself. Another thing I've realized recently is that, while I can pray for others, I can't do that very personal work for them. We each have to do that work ourselves, and it will necessarily involve suffering. The powers that be gloss right over that part though.....Probably because they don't understand it themselves...It's become elusive to most, like trying to grab hold onto fog. In a way, James Martin SJ has a point when he calls out the double standards applied to the divorced and remarried, or the couple living "in sin" prior to marriage. There was a blind eye turned to all that and more over the decades. But, as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right". AED's comment re: Malachi Martin about there not being enough grace in the world for the pope to release the 3rd secret of Fatima makes even more sense now. There's so much hammering about sin or worse, just brushing it off, but most aren't aware of how to conquer it, or even worse, that it needs to be conquered. Or the great JOY and help that comes from God in doing the work. True joy only comes from being in a state of grace, and when we fall down, we get back up again by seeking to restore that grace through the sacraments, especially confession. Herein lies our hope and our joy. And according to the Synod, this apparently, is irrelevant. Bishop Barron's suggestion to help pretty much infuriated me: 1)"On a number of occasions during the synod, I proposed the Catholic Action model that was, in the preconciliar period, such an effective way to form the laity in their mission to the world." 2)"A question that I raised several times in the small group conversations, however, was whether, in our enthusiasm to include people in the governance of the Church, we forget that the vocation of 99 percent of the Catholic laity is to sanctify the world, to bring Christ into the arenas of politics, the arts, entertainment, communication, business, medicine, etc., precisely where they have special competence." Imho, that whole Catholic Action stuff is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Vatican II says we must as laity do our part! What does that even mean, really? ....We can't sanctify anyone or anything except our own selves. Aside from doing and being what God created us to be, how do we first come to understand what our personal reason for having been created is? Only by the grace of God. He did in fact take the safe and measured way in expressing his thoughts, but again, imho, he appears to just be "doing his job", as he sees it. A "company man" rather than a "man of Christ, a successor to the Apostles" No doubt it's what he was taught he needed to be.....a man of action. I question how "on Fire" those words are, but to be fair I'm pretty much an idiot myself so.... God love him."
I love Bishop Baron, he's a great bishop and a great man, deserving of all our prayers, not criticisms. Who are we??
I have to agree I have got more fond of him the more I listen to him. I believe he has brought a lot of people into the church through his his apostolate.
This is true. He has brought many into the church. But if and when they hit that "wall of suffering" that comes from actually practicing the faith, will he be able/capable to help them through that? How many people, for example, have gone through a Cursillo weekend and come out on a great high, on fire for the faith, but then after the high wears off, just fade away again.....because there was no real on going support....especially when, at some point, suffering replaces that high. Imho, Bishop Barron doesn't seem to get much into this in his preaching and teaching.......
All our clergy are deserving of our prayers. Who are we indeed. But in the end, who really stands for the Faith? During the Antifa-BLM disaster not too long ago, the below was his response to a lady about the statues of St. Junipero Serra being torn down. imho, true colours come out in a crisis. With all due respect to his Excellency, this did not exactly inspire confidence. Contrast that with Bishop Strickland actually going to Dodger Stadium and well, imho, there's a huge difference there. I often wonder how many good bishops go to bed every night weeping for a lack of courage....so prayers indeed are necessary.
But this never ending criticism of the bishops has seemingly caught on as a popular new movement of "the righteous". It is not helpful. That doesn't mean never speak up Wilhelm something is not right, but we see constant bickering ND never ending nitpicking of every thing every bishop says. Bishop Baron is not one that deserves this sort of constant treatment. No one is perfect but he's a great bishop whose trying his best to be a faithful bishop.
Well, the criticisms are really nothing new. Whether it's of Bishops, Popes or clergy. Sometimes though, it may hurt more if it's someone we've put our "faith" in. It hurts me terribly to see what is happening to Pope Benedict's legacy, or the legacy of St. John Paul II, or the stopping of the Beatification of Archbishop Sheen. Lord knows they all were greatly criticized by some, and still are. We are all of us sinners, trying our best to live out our faith. And we're to bless those who persecute us. But in these days, when things are truly getting darker by the minute, I don't believe it's wrong to take a look around to see who is actually going to have your back when SHTF, wherever you happen to be at that time, or who may just hide away....and leave you to it. Christ is the Light of the world and in the end, we're to follow Him. Viva Cristo Rey! God bless~
I agree if you're talking about true enemies of the faith. Fr james martin for instance. People like bishop Baron are not enemies of the faith
I leave you with this question: Have you ever heard or seen Bishop Barron call out that particular priest? If so, I would love to hear about it ~
Is that the primary mission of a bishop to sit here and call out bad priests and bishops? Or is it to spread the faith. What he absolutely has done, without naming names is speak out against evil agendas, lgbt agenda, moral relativism that has infiltrated the church, he has absolutely stood against these agendas. If you want someone that's just gonna go church militant style and call out every bad bishop by name, then no that's not Bishop Baron. And thank God for that. God bless bishop Baron.
Is it not to "teach, govern and sanctify"? He has a huge apostolate in the USA, he's been likened to Fulton Sheen. Did you know that right now, in the state of Iowa's legislature there is a satanic altar on display? True blasphemy, but they are saying it is allowed due to so called "religious freedom". According to the good Bishop, it's the laity's job to sanctify the secular arena. And as far as I'm aware, he has not said one word against this. How would you take that if you were a Catholic having to go to work there everyday, during Advent no less? To be fair, I don't know if any of the bishops have spoken out. By the time they fraternally agree on a statement though, the damage will have been done. I suppose it's a matter of taking the good and leaving the rest.........it is what it is.
Easiest thing in the world to do is to criticize. I'm sure you and I could be criticized for plenty. And if we were public people we would be. In serves no value to your or my soul to just criticize criticize. At our judgement God is not going to ask us if we spent enough time criticizing bishops (well he may but it'll be in the negative sense not the positive). He's going to want to know if we fed the hungary, clothed the naked, and loved our enemies and our neighbors. Constant criticism of bishops and priest is grown so old, I honestly can't stomach it anymore.
I've been blessed by Bishop Barron and I've been disappointed by Bishop Barron. Perhaps the instances of yea and nay stand out in my mind because of his prominence. It's funny, we wish our prelates would be more vocal in upholding the true Faith, but then, "Would I like my public positions to be put under a microscope so as to be analyzed and critiqued day after day?" After all, I initiated this thread! Yeesh! Lord, make us, whether clergy or laity, more bold in proclaiming the truth, even if we stumble every now and then. But humble us if ever cunning and deceit find their way into our hearts. May vainglory be uprooted in each one of us, especially in our clergy.
Years ago, I used to listen to Word on Fire homilies from the then Father Barron and found them interesting. However, after a while I began to wonder about some of his interpretations/assertions about biblical passages which seemed a bit 'off' and took the decision to stop listening. Later, I became aware of his belief that we may entertain a 'reasonable hope' that all are saved and I left a comment on the relevant YouTube video pointing out that Our Lady had said to the visionaries at Fatima that many souls who go to hell did so because of sexual sins. I was surprised when he personally responded saying that the Fatima apparitions were private revelations which any Catholic could, in good conscience, doubt or dismiss. So, he acknowledged that the words of the Fatima visionaries contradicted his own hope/theory/belief and indicated that he preferred the latter. I suppose you have to admire his bravery (audacity) because if he is wrong, the consequences could be very serious for him and those encouraged to believe that 'it's probably going to be OK' whatever I get up to. We are the (more or less') Faithful of the Church and are entitled to call out even bishops when they propose novelties. There were also some sexual and financial allegations made about the 'Word on Fire' (very financially successful) organisation that prompted further doubts in my mind. When a teenager, I read the words of some old priest who said that if a Catholic priest never mentioned; the Real Presence, Our Lady (affectionately), the Rosary (encouragingly) or the reality of hell, then to 'run a mile'. I have always found it to be a good guide but if I ran a mile from such priests today, I would never find a church to attend.
~ "And on earth, peace to men of goodwill"~ Those priests are out there, quietly living their vocations as called by God, seeking no limelight. May the Good Lord bless every one of them that work diligently to protect the small flocks entrusted to their care, may Our Lady intercede for them, and may St. Joseph protect them as he protected Mary's Son. They are the "bridges to Heaven" and we so desperately need them. May we do our best to support them in whatever ways we are able.
Total misrep of what he said (I suppose you have to admire his bravery (audacity) because if he is wrong, the consequences could be very serious for him and those encouraged to believe that 'it's probably going to be OK' whatever I get up to) - his exact words were , and I just listened to that video again, was "we must acknowledge the possibility of going to hell", and later said "we can have reasonable hope for all people". There is nothing contradicting doctrine here and he is not endangering his or anyone's soul saying this. He acknowledges we CAN go to hell. He also acknowledges there's hope for every person. Yes u could argue he's a bit "over hopeful" that hell could be empty, its pretty clearly not empty, and he even in later video explained thay its not even likely, hes simply sayjng theres hopenfor every soul. There are plenty of things people do that endanger there souls. This message of hope while at the same time acknowledging hell exists is most definitely not one of the things that endangers someone's soul. Please come on.
I am glad to hear it. As I recall he was a little more 'hopeful' in the video I watched and to which he replied to my comment. What I said above was as much related to the discrepancy between his hope and the word of the Fatima visionaries (and dozens of other visionaries, saints and mystics) as his written and spoken word on the matter. I still think that some might well comfort themselves in their sinfulness by his words which I would still hold to be a spiritual danger.
