Bishop Barron nails it on the head (Vatican II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
🤦‍♂️

Ok… so, this isn’t about the subject matter that Bp Barron is discussing, but just about the fact that some (including you?) are critical of him personally?

Not ‘hypothetical’ – real! And taught by the Church as such! (Yes, it’s “uncertain”, in any arbitrary case, but it’s nevertheless true.)

Yeah. And the fact that the Church always teaches that she’s not indifferent makes no difference, eh? C’mon…

He does. You just think his approach is poor. Apples and oranges.

Would you mind citing that document for me? I haven’t run across that particular claim before.
StudentMI said:
Theology converted me. The ‘encounter’ line never appealed to me
Click to expand...
Ahh, but that merely means that you experienced your encounter via rationality and “reading your way in”. Still an encounter with God, though… 😉
 
A simple question to ask your priest and bishop.

Is Holy Communion the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

The answer will tell you all you need to know.
 
StudentMI said:
I happen to be Catholic, yes. I just have been in such purity tests before by both traditionalist and liberal Catholics and don’t like them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is a litmus test for discussion with me. If you don’t accept the council as valid then there’s nothing more to discuss. I don’t waste my time.
 
That’s a shame as I’ve found some of the most enlightening and enjoyable conversations I’ve had have been with those who disagree with either me or the Church or the Council or whatever.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Theology doesn’t convert. Our Faith isn’t a sales pitch. The only effective method of evangelization is the method used by Christ Himself - a method of encounter that culminates in a call to conversion and is then nourished by ongoing discipleship.
Click to expand...
There are various ways people are converted–and calling other means a “sales pitch” is insulting to our God given reason that, with the help of grace, aids in our understanding. St. Paul had a lot of success making converts with theology:
Acts 18:4 And he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.
Click to expand...
 
I think there’s always the same total amount of confessing sins going on, in every decade. The only thing that varies is how much we confess our own sins, compared to confessing what we are told to be the sins of other persons.

Have you noticed how few Laity go to Confession now, compared with decades ago?
 
StudentMI said:
A lot of it is just ‘inspiring’ images and soundbytes that most of the time seem like preaching to the choir.
Click to expand...
Bishop Barron’s videos are some of the most theologically rich done by clergy. I learned many things with them, and in fact with a recent video (the one about the Holy Spirit in Pentecost) I came to the opposite conclussion: it was too technical for a lay audience.

And “inspiring images” are not wrong, they are part of evangelizing through beauty (something EF enthusiasts are usually proud of).
 
Last edited:
Oh, I’ll discuss other things, just not VII. Discussing VII with people who don’t accept its validity is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Would you mind citing that document for me?
Click to expand...
Here:
http://www.archivioradiovaticana.va...ment_on_christian-jewish_dialogue_/en-1193274

The document itself says it has no doctrinal value and is just there to provoke discussion:
The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection prepared by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews on current theological questions that have developed since the Second Vatican Council. It is intended to be a starting point for further theological thought with a view to enriching and intensifying the theological dimension of Jewish-Catholic dialogue.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say Jews don’t need Jesus and it actually has a decent explanation of the meaning of the old covenant not being revoked by Christ (especially concerning the covenant with Abraham and the olive tree metaphor).

It does say there shouldn’t be an institutional mission to Jews, but this isn’t really new. The conversion of the Jews is often seen in eschatological terms. For example, St. Bernard encouraged Pope Bl. Eugene III’s institutional mission to everyone else, but not the Jews:

St. Bernard, De Consideratione
It is important, therefore, for you to do what you can so that unbelievers may be converted to the faith, that converts may not turn away, that those who have turned away may return; moreover, that the perverse may be directed toward righteousness, the corrupted called back to the truth, and the corruptors refuted by invincible arguments so that they either correct their error, if that be possible, or, if it is not, that they lose their authority and the means of corrupting others. And you must not completely neglect the worst kind of fools; by this I mean heretics and schismatics, for these are the corrupted and the corruptors. Like dogs they tear apart; like foxes they deceive. You should make the greatest effort either to correct such men lest they perish, or restrain them lest they destroy others. Granted, time excuses you from dealing with the Jews: they have their boundary which cannot be passed. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first.
Click to expand...
In any event, Pope Francis exhortation Gaudium Evangelii is of a higher authority and it says we should not exclude anyone, any people, any tribe, etc. from the mission of evangelization:
Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him… Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone.
…
In fidelity to the example of the Master, it is vitally important for the Church today to go forth and preach the Gospel to all: to all places, on all occasions, without hesitation, reluctance or fear. The joy of the Gospel is for all people: no one can be excluded…The Book of Revelation speaks of “an eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tongue and tribe and people” (Rev 14:6).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
People may disagree but I think if seminary training included a bit of a Catholic version of New Criticism type analysis, a lot of the Spirit of Vatican II nonsense would go away, along with the Bologna school of interpretation.
 
With all due respect: you seriously trust Wiki as your source of information? Worse yet, did you notice that the citations they provided were from an NPR article and a Reuters article? Do you think that they got it right? Do you think that the Church shouldn’t oppose anti-semitism?

More to the point: did you look at what the Vatican actually wrote that gave rise to this commentary? It was a discussion of the historical development of the notion of “supersessionism”, in the context of anti-Semitic attitudes on the part of Christians. The whole point is that God’s covenant with the Jews is not nullified (something which Jesus goes to great lengths to point out in the Gospels!), and that inasmuch as a “replacement theory” led to forced conversions and other negative actions, we must not presume that we need to convert Jews from the belief in the same God in whom we believe.
From Kaspar himself:
The universality of Christ’s redemption for Jews and for Gentiles is so fundamental throughout the entire New Testament (Eph 2,14-18; Col 1,15-18; 1 Tim 2,5 and many others) and even in the same Letter to the Romans (Rom 3,24; 8,32) that it cannot be ignored or passed over in silence. So from the Christian perspective the covenant with the Jewish people is unbroken (Rom 11,29), for we as Christians believe that these promises find in Jesus their definitive and irrevocable Amen (2 Cor 1,20) and at the same time that in him, who is the end of the law (Rom 10,4), the law is not nullified but upheld (Rom 3,31).

This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with God’s plan, which for us comes to its historical completion in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
And… all of this is what the Bible says and the Church actually teaches.
 
That’s not what the documents are saying, however. They’re merely saying that organized missionary activities aimed at proselytizing Jews are what are problematic.
 
Genesis315 said:
There are various ways people are converted–and calling other means a “sales pitch” is insulting to our God given reason that, with the help of grace, aids in our understanding. St. Paul had a lot of success making converts with theology
Click to expand...
You are correct, of course. And I apologize for my inflated rhetoric. Kyrie eleison.
 
“Mass conversion” is a Protestant notion, isn’t it?

Nah. Not in play. It’s not “conversion” so much as it’s “belief in God that’s – in a sense – ‘imperfect’ or ‘somewhat mistaken’”, no?

“You believe that God has promised a messiah. So do we. We believe that he’s already come. Nevertheless, you’re still covenanted by God.” That’s not ‘watering down the truth’.

Doesn’t make you right, though, necessarily… does it?
buffalo said:
How about missionaries evangelizing the Jews?
Click to expand...
  • “Jesus is the Messiah!”
    • “Yeah. We already know you believe that. We disagree.”
  • “Jesus is God!”
    • “Again, we get it. We disagree.”
Then what?

Supersessionism =/= dispensationalism.
 
Yeah. Pentecost day. Subsequent days. What’s the citation you’re thinking about?

Agreed. Why is that relevant to the present conversation, in which we’re talking about what the Church really does teach?

None of this addresses the point at hand, though… does it?

I don’t know what that means
[/quote]
“Supersessionism is not equal to dispensationalism”.

That seems to be the presumption you’re working under – that the two are equivalent – and it is mistaken.
 
buffalo said:
A simple question to ask your priest and bishop.

Is Holy Communion the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

The answer will tell you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
What if the priest or bishop says, “that is the privileged belief of what Holy Communion is”?
 
I think the idiom is ‘hit the nail on the head’, that is, on the head of the nail. Nailing it on the head would be a little painful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top