Fr. Robert Barron's Politically Correct Church continues

I may not be as well versed in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as others here but even I think MRyan would find problems with this "conservative" priest's comments. I find it troubling and and common layman as myself would just say--- man why be Catholic ? Its a curse! If alll can be saved without the True Faith?

This is despicable talk. He has just demoted Christ,His teaching and His Church to the level of human reasoning and imagination.
What an insult to every martyr who has counted their life as nothing in order to save the souls of the very people who this priest claims are already saved.
You are correct Cowboy, Why be a Catholic at all if all this is true?

Pure rubbish.

Maybe I was too hard on him because I think he was right about truth being found in a number of places. But I think he is wrong in that theses truths in themselves can help us to salvation. I mean truth outside the Church should work like breadcrumbs were supposed to work for Hansel and Gretel, to lead back.

It is sad that he is so "famous" a friend of mine suggested I go to his site because I was questioning Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. So far not much help, lol, I get more info on this forum, lol.

I don't know what it is but his style of speaking irritates me. Some of his other videos weren't so bad as above but sometimes I think I could answer some of the questions better than him.

I think priests are in a crisis. They were always the most educated in the Faith, but now many lay people seem to know more than the average priest. I don't think they know how to deal with it. I talked to my parish priest about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and he said "no salvation outside the Church is a heresy!" I said "I don't think it is a heresy its in the CCC" then he just walked away. Seminary doesn't seem to be teaching things well.

How is Hinduism "reflective of the truth that is found in Catholicism?" Don't they worship like thousands of gods that are basically demons?

Pope Pius XI made clear the error to which Fr Barron has succumbed and indeed a few of our Popes

Pius XI wrote thus in Mortalium animos, of January 6, 1928, concerning interfaith encounters: "Such undertakings cannot, in any way, be approved by Catholics, since they are based on the erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in the sense that all equally, although in different ways, manifest and signify the natural and innate sentiment that carries us towards God and pushes us to recognize with respect His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory fall into a complete error, but what is more, in perverting the notion of the true religion, they repudiate it, and they fall step by step into naturalism and atheism."

Is this man serious? Any wonder our beloved Church is where She is today with "priests" like this running around. MRyan i agree "pure rubbish."

Wait a minute! Who are we armchair theologians to question this priest? He taught at the Angelicum, a PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY!!! What authority do we have?

Internet hack theologians! Lay people with no training!

Who are we to interpret what he is saying as "pure rubbish" and contrary to the teachings of the Church? We wouldn't know a theological distinction if it hit us between the eyes!

In May 2008, Father Robert Barron, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, was named the first holder of the endowed Francis Cardinal George Chair of Systematic Theology at Mundelein Seminary, the second such named endowed chair the university started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_George

How many of us hold a chair in systematic theology?

Rasha:
Wait a minute! Who are we armchair theologians to question this priest? He taught at the Angelicum, a PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY!!! What authority do we have?

Internet hack theologians! Lay people with no training!

Who are we to interpret what he is saying as "pure rubbish" and contrary to the teachings of the Church? We wouldn't know a theological distinction if it hit us between the eyes!

Rasha,
Are you purposefully not seeing a distinction between what one or several priests say and what the Church from it’s Roman authoritative hierarchy, the teaching magisterium (Pope and delegated Bishops in union with the Pope and catechisms and encyclicals) has taught for several centuries explicitly and even more centuries implicitly?

I’m pretty sure you could tell the difference if you tried, so are your words just to discredit MRyan and mock him and those of us who agree with him?

Good night to all here and may God bless each of us and our families. May the Holy Spirit of truth enlighten all of us as we grow in the faith and may He give us the gift of proper discernment.

Love,
Elisa


PS I think perhaps you might have locked the other thread too soon because maybe Columba might have wanted to respond? I would give him the last word because I already said I finished what I had to say. But it is your forum to do with as you see fit.

I agree that Columba should have the opportunity, if he wishes, to have a final say re: Sr Lucy, on the thread which strayed off original topic. I too, like Elisha, have finished what I had to say but maybe Columba would have like to responded before the thread was closed.

God Bless

Sorry, probably posted my last message in wrong part of this forum.

Elisa wrote:Are you purposefully not seeing a distinction between what one or several priests say and what the Church from it’s Roman authoritative hierarchy, the teaching magisterium (Pope and delegated Bishops in union with the Pope and catechisms and encyclicals) has taught for several centuries explicitly and even more centuries implicitly?

You are actually proving my point. You are admitting that there is a hierarchy of authority. The problem is that you recognize that there is a distinction between what several priests say and what the Church says from it's "Roman authoritative hierarchy" but you do not distinguish between infallible and fallible documents.


Just wondering...Would you agree that the Words of Institution do not need to necessarily be explicitly present in a Liturgy for the consecration to take place?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Perhaps we can start a separate thread on this in the Eastern Church section.


(BTW, I am not intending to mock anyone, just trying to prove a point.)