Father Robert Barron

[Vouthon]

I said it was of the faith revealed (Fides Divina; i.e. contained in the deposit of faith.) not of the faith defined (De Fide Definita). A third and intermediary level of Dogmatic explication would be of the faith universally held (Fides Catholica)

Even so, this is inaccurate. It has never been revealed and has actually, if you study the Tradition of the Church extensively, been a topic of great dispute among theologians. All of them agree, nonetheless, that only God truly knows who and how many are among the Elect. You are resting this assessment on your own understanding of a biblical verse, a biblical verse that I have already given above a contrary interpretation of from an orthodox source.

I do not object to you holding the opinion that the damned are in the majority. What I do object to is an opinion, shared by some theologians historically, being elevated to a doctrine when none exists.

Ludwig Ott compiled a list of the various doctrines of the faith. I see no Fides Divina that states what you state.

Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange spoke truly when he said:

To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude.** And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain**

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial

Indeed the old Catholic Encyloepedia actually argued that many non-Catholics who live in in invincible ignorance would be saved, let alone baptized and believing Catholics:

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
Vol. 14, TOLERATION,

But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, “condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics”? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one’s own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person. Not that she refers, as is often stated, the eternal salvation of the heterodox solely and exclusively to “invincible ignorance”, and thus makes sanctifying ignorance a convenient gate to heaven for the stupid. She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church… Otherwise the gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

“It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven.of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. **Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy **.”

 

[Mark121359]

I like Fr. Barron as well, but as several have commented, I too have trouble with his universalist view. Others have argued that recent popes have suggested that most go to purgatory and heaven, and only a minority go to hell. But I’ll tell you something, some of the most brilliant minds of the Church thought completely the opposite. They thought that the majority of mankind would suffer the pains of hell. Among them; Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, Doctor and Father of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, Doctor and Father of the Church, to name a few. I posted this on another thread on the topic of hell. Here are some of their thoughts on the population of hell.

There are a select few who are saved.”
“Those who are saved are in the minority.”
-Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

‘The number of the elect is so small - so small - that were we to know how small it is, we should faint away with grief. The number of the elect is so small that were God to assemble them together, He would cry to them, as He did of old, by the mouth of His prophet, “Gather yourselves together, one by one” - one from this province, one from that kingdom.’
Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort

‘All persons desire to be saved, but the greater part, because they will not adopt the means of being saved, fall into sin and are lost. . . In fact, the Elect are much fewer than the damned, for the reprobate are much more numerous than the Elect.’
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

‘What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that!’
***St. John Chrysostom, Doctor and Father of the Church ***

‘There are many who arrive at the faith, but few that are led into the heavenly kingdom.’
***Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor and Father of the Church ***

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous.”
***-Saint John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church ***

‘Not all, nor even a majority, are saved. . . They are indeed many, if regarded by themselves, but they are few in comparison with the far larger number of those who shall be punished with the devil.’
St. Augustine, Doctor and Father of the Church

“The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed.”
***Saint John Mary Vianney ***

“Ah, how many souls lose Heaven and are cast into Hell!”
-Saint Francis Xavier

“Bad confessions damn the majority of Christians.”
“I had the greatest sorrow for the many souls that condemned themselves to Hell, especially those Lutherans…I saw souls falling into hell like snowflakes.”
***-Saint Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church ***

By my way of thinking, it’s extremely difficult if not foolish for me to just dismiss these views from some of the great minds of our Church. Memaw mentioned something about Our Lady of Fatima. This interview with Sister Lucia was very troubling for the priest that interviewed her;

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 by 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 deeply disturbed me. I returned to Italy with that grave warning impressed on my heart.” ***

Peace, Mark

 

[Vouthon]

I believe the phrase he was likely looking for is “public, grave, manifest, sin”.

Again, we are not entitled to judge. Only God reads the secret thoughts of the human heart. He will judge. We cannot possibly know who is saved and who is damned based only on externals.

 

[anixx]

I wasn’t talking about specific persons, more like the massa damnata of St Augustine.
Let us take state law into account, and work our way up.
Once you step into the borders of a country, you are obliged to know and respect them. Ignorance does not excuse you from punishment.
Natural law takes it’s toll immediate. If you jump from a ten story building, upon hitting the ground you die immediately, ignorance does not save you.
Divine law, which is the supreme law, from which all other forms of law exist, acts the same. Crime and punishment. For Adam and Eve broke the commandment, punishment was death. But the second divine person became men to take away our sins. We know that the salvific mission of Christ operates in all history, past, present and future. If we don’t partake in this Redemption in an active way, we have no excuse in front of God, the Father, we have no forgiveness. I recall the calling of Abraham intercession for Sodom: Lord, for 50 just…40 just…30 just…10 just, finally, will you still destroy it? I see in these a prefiguration of the cry of the Son in front of the Father for the entire world. Will you destroy the entire world, if there are 50 just? (just an example, it may well be 5 billion)

EDIT:

Again, we are not entitled to judge. Only God reads the secret thoughts of the human heart. He will judge. We cannot possibly know who is saved and who is damned based only on externals.

You will know them by their fruits…

 

[Vouthon]

I like Fr. Barron as well, but as several have commented, I too have trouble with his universalist view. Others have argued that recent popes have suggested that most go to purgatory and heaven, and only a minority go to hell. But I’ll tell you something, some of the most brilliant minds of the Church thought completely the opposite. They thought that the majority of mankind would suffer the pains of hell. Among them; Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, Doctor and Father of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, Doctor and Father of the Church, to name a few. I posted this on another thread on the topic of hell. Here are some of their thoughts on the population of hell.

Indeed but not one of these theologians stated, as a previous poster did, that they were attesting to divine revelation. They were expressing a theological opinion, one which was contested by other theologians such as the Cappadocian Fathers and the great Dominican theologians of Salamanca.

St. Augustine is an interesting case. A canonized saint of profound intellect and unquestionable sanctity who nevertheless taught many errors that were later condemned by the Magisterium or not supported by it, such as his expressed belief in a predestination to hell that damages the Church’s dogma of freewill. His is an interesting case in judging Fr. Barron, for one can be both a saint and teach sincere error. St. Nicholas of Ferrier for instance preached a prophecy, famously, that never came true on the date he claimed it would happen.

I turn again to Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange:

Many Fathers and theologians incline to the smaller number of the elect…Still, these texts are not absolutely demonstrative. Thus, following many others, Pere Monsabre [674] remarks [the opposing view presented]…

In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended by Father Faber in England, by Monsignor Bougaud in France, by Father Castelein, S.J., in Belgium.

To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude. And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain.

Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church.

Restricting the question to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments.

But if we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution.

There is no revealed dogma or doctrine on the population of hell or the number of the elect, only the esteemed opinions of theologians each with opposing views. In light of this Pope Benedict XVI’s statements in Spe Salvi, a magisterial document, are an intriguing exception to this and an important intervention into the age-old discussion.

 

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

This may be off topic at this point in the discussion. But I wanted to say that I followed Fr. Barron’s Lenten Reflections and I want to say that thanks to Fr. Barron It was the “best lent I have ever known” On May 10, our Parish sponsored a mini retreat based on Fr. Barron’s “Eucharist”. Fr. Barron’s presentation was accompanied by a handout that docuemented all his points,
On the point of “Hell” Is Hell empty? Of course not, Satan and his followers are there. Are they joined by human souls. Highly likely. When we begin to speak of hope for Univesal Salvation are we not thinking of hope for our personal salvation?

 

[SyroMalankara]

To compare him to venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen is disgraceful, in my eyes. Archbishop Sheen was the Catholic Faith incarnate.

LOL this made me laugh. Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen, as great as he was, would DENY that comment to anyone’s face! The Catholic Faith Incarnate is none other than JESUS the Messiah!

I think Fr. Barron knows that there will be some who choose hell, but he is emphasizing HOPE and JOY, and HOPE and JOY demands that we look for that seedling of God’s light even in the most rotten behaved men. That once encountered by that Divine Love, even the most hardened will be penetrated and choose that Love!

It’s a very mystical, perhaps historically more Eastern perspective.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Indeed but not one of these theologians stated, as a previous poster did, that they were attesting to divine revelation. They were expressing a theological opinion, one which was contested by other theologians such as the Cappadocian Fathers and the great Dominican theologians of Salamanca.

St. Augustine is an interesting case. A canonized saint of profound intellect and unquestionable sanctity who nevertheless taught many errors that were later condemned by the Magisterium or not supported by it, such as his expressed belief in a predestination to hell that damages the Church’s dogma of freewill. His is an interesting case in judging Fr. Barron, for one can be both a saint and teach sincere error. St. Nicholas of Ferrier for instance preached a prophecy, famously, that never came true on the date he claimed it would happen.

I turn again to Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange:

There is no revealed dogma or doctrine on the population of hell or the number of the elect, only the esteemed opinions of theologians each with opposing views. In light of this Pope Benedict XVI’s statements in Spe Salvi, a magisterial document, are an intriguing exception to this and an important intervention into the age-old discussion.

If anything the course of this thread has shown the fewness of the elect and the multitude of the damned to be a Fides Catholica dogma, because not only is it contained in the deposit of faith, it has been proclaimed throughout the ages by the fathers, saints, and doctors. I hope that within the next hundred years it will be made even more explicit as De Fide Definita because the opposing error has abounded so in our turbulent times.

Regarding your statements on invincible ignorance; I agree wholly, and have never denied the hope of salvation in those who are united to the church by a baptism of implicit desire. (Which is how Pope St.Pius X termed it in his catechism) That isn’t the subject of discussion though.

 

[KjetilK]

A clarification of semantics is here…

I was asking you to defend your point, not restate it.

 

[anixx]

LOL this made me laugh. Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen, as great as he was, would DENY that comment to anyone’s face! The Catholic Faith Incarnate is none other than JESUS the Messiah!

I think Fr. Barron knows that there will be some who choose hell, but he is emphasizing HOPE and JOY, and HOPE and JOY demands that we look for that seedling of God’s light even in the most rotten behaved men. That once encountered by that Divine Love, even the most hardened will be penetrated and choose that Love!

It’s a very mystical, perhaps historically more Eastern perspective.

I didn’t mean it in a literal sense, but more of a metaphor. His life, thinking and his sayings and actions were very Catholic. He knew the Church very well.
And btw: was it st Ignatius of Antioch that said: where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church?
You cannot have HOPE and JOY, without Good Friday. There is no joy without the Cross, nor hope of it. Joy is not a feeling. Our joy lies in our hope. The hope that after we have gone through our cross in this life, we may have joy in the presence of God in the afterlife. We endure all here, that we may be consoled there.

 

[RosslynV]

Why is this thread in “non-catholic” sub forum?

Lapsed catholics should not view fr. Barron’s two YouTube videos on Hell. They provide no motivation to change ones life-- after all we are all saved.

 

[DAML72]

We do desire that all go to Heaven, this is the will of God, that all may be saved. The affirmation that we hope is actually NOT a very Catholic thing. It’s a very Protestant thing. It’s tied to the double predestination theology of Calvin, just that you don’t take into account Hell. To hope something is to have a base for your hope. Jesus said: Who loves me, keeps my commandments.
One does not keep his commandments. Ergo: One does not love Christ.
And God gives justice to all. If one chooses not to love God, God gives one what he asked. Ratifies one’s choice. It is the greatest Love to accept one’s choice. You cannot get married to someone against his will, can you? Nor can one stand in the presence of God if he doesn’t want to. In fact, one cannot stand God for he loves him and the person doesn’t. One can love darkness more then light. God won’t save someone against their will. God bless!

Oh please. You are splitting hairs. How is it not possible to have a hope (even with a basis, though I take issue with your interpretation of the word) that all will be saved?

Is His mercy not infinite? AND, are we not judged in accordance with our circumstances?

Mother Angelica used to say that she believes that there is a moment between life and death in which God gives every man the chance to repent. Would you charge her with distorting the teachings of the Church?

 

[DAML72]

LOL this made me laugh. Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen, as great as he was, would DENY that comment to anyone’s face! The Catholic Faith Incarnate is none other than JESUS the Messiah!

I think Fr. Barron knows that there will be some who choose hell, but he is emphasizing HOPE and JOY, and HOPE and JOY demands that we look for that seedling of God’s light even in the most rotten behaved men. That once encountered by that Divine Love, even the most hardened will be penetrated and choose that Love!

It’s a very mystical, perhaps historically more Eastern perspective.

Completely agree. Fulton Sheen was a man, not a faith. He had his failings and errors (for example, in one of his books, his words can be interpreted to encourage a woman to stay in abusive marriage and try to change her husband through love - this is not the position of the church today.)

No priest is perfect because priests are men - fallen men. But as far as priests go, I think Father Barron is pretty darned awesome. I have an old ‘friend’ (or acquaintance) who is an atheist and is actually quite hostile towards organized religion (especially Christianity). He has his reasons, and he carries with him quite a bit of pain and loss. Anyway, Father Barron has been a wonderful resource for me to be able to not only defend my own faith to this person, but to reach him on a somewhat pastoral level. I can’t think of any other priests out there who are addressing the New Atheism and giving Catholics tools to answer its attacks on an intellectual level.

 

[DAML72]

Here’s what he actually wrote, for anyone who is interested.

wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/March-2011/Is-Hell-Crowded-or-Empty-A-Catholic-Perspective.aspx

 

[DAML72]

It is a fact that dying in a state of mortal sin sends the soul directly to hell. This is Church teaching.
An adulterer, a child abuser, an active homosexual, and all the parade of the likes, will not inherit the Kingdom of God, according to saint Paul, or in accordance with Church teaching from above. Look around guys. Most of them are in a state of mortal sin and happily profess it.

And it is the sole providence of God to judge. We are not to judge the souls of others - we are only to point out sinful acts, not determine what state a soul is in. How could we know?

 

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

Mother Angelica used to say that she believes that there is a moment between life and death in which God gives every man the chance to repent. Would you charge her with distorting the teachings of the Church?

I have heard this same idea from some priests. Was not the criminal on Jesus right given this chance.

 

[Mark121359]

I don’t know a whole lot about Fr. Dwight Longenecker. But what he says here about the error of universalism is spot on. I get the sense that a lot of Catholics on here believe in at least, to use Fr. Longenecker’s words, “semi-universalism.” And as he points out in the bolded below, this is extremely dangerous.

GREENVILLE, SC (Standing on my Head) - Over at the National Catholic Reporter there is a satirical piece about the new Mass translation. The piece itself is sort of funny, and as one who writes ‘leaden satire’ on this blog I can appreciate it well enough.

What tickles me most though, are the comments–especially ones from priests. Here’s one: he’s having a big grumble and stamping his foot and saying he’s not going to use the new missal…Most of all, he says, "And I for one will not pray heresy… Christ came for “all” not just “many”.

Is it possible that this Catholic priest does not know that this is a direct quotation from Matthew’s gospel? "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” Apparently not.

I’ve heard other priests complain about this faithfulness to the actual words of Our Lord. One of them said with a pained expression, “It grieves me when I read those words knowing how so many of our people will feel excluded.” Whaat? If you’re at Mass you’re not one of those who are excluded–if you’re in a state of grace that is. So who’s excluded? The people who are not at Mass–and they excluded themselves, and geesh—they’re not even there so how are they going to be hurt and excluded?

But anyhow, the word ‘many’ in the canon is balanced by the words the priest says at the introduction to communion, “Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sins of the world.” Beautiful. It is there at the introduction to communion that the priest declares to the world with John the Baptist–that Christ takes away the sins of the whole world." Then he welcomes all who will come to him with the words, “Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb.”

The two phrases in the liturgy–both of them direct quotations from the gospels–balance each other and reveal the true Catholic theology: It ain’t that hard: Christ died for the sins of the whole world, everybody is welcome to accept the gift, but not everyone will.

To go off on a tangent a little, we also have to understand the context of Jesus saying at the Last Supper. When he says ‘shed for many for the forgiveness of sins’ the emphasis is actually on his inclusiveness, not his exclusiveness. He is looking to ‘those other sheep’ of the Gentiles, and his word ‘many’ therefore means, “Many, many more than are here present who you apostles cannot imagine right now.” This is an opening up, not a narrowing down.

*** In any case, this is not the real problem. The quarrel over the words is just a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that the modern Catholic Church is shot through with the heresy of universalism and semi-universalism.

What is universalism? The belief that “everyone will eventually be saved no matter what.” Semi-universalism is “we hope and believe that everyone will be saved no matter what.” In other words, semi- universalism is universalism for those who don’t have the guts to be universalists.

Universalism is a heresy because it is a half truth. Christ did die for all, but the universalist only holds on to that part of the truth. He denies the other half of the full truth, that not everyone will accept that grace and therefore some will go to hell.

It is a sentimentalist heresy because it is based not on clear thinking or logic or the authority of Church teaching or the catechism or the Sacred Scriptures, for there is no support anywhere for universalism in the Catholic faith. Instead it is based on people’s longing to be nice and ‘not hurt anyone’s feelings’ and the syrupy sentiment that, “God is too loving to send anyone to hell.”

The effects of universalism on the church are catastrophic. It’s not real hard to understand. People aren’t dumb. If everyone is going to be saved, then why bother to go to church? If everyone is going to be saved there is no such thing as mortal sin. If everyone is going to be saved there is no need for evangelism. If everyone is going to be saved there is no need to feed the hungry, become a priest, build the church and become a saint.

Of all the various Hydra heads of modernism, universalism is probably the most insidious and diabolical and destructive of them all. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s sweetness and light and sentimentality and underneath it’s poison.***

Peace, Mark

 

[anixx]

Oh please. You are splitting hairs. How is it not possible to have a hope (even with a basis, though I take issue with your interpretation of the word) that all will be saved?

Is His mercy not infinite? AND, are we not judged in accordance with our circumstances?

Mother Angelica used to say that she believes that there is a moment between life and death in which God gives every man the chance to repent. Would you charge her with distorting the teachings of the Church?

I desire that a giraffe appear in my front yard. I can never hope that, it’s just that, a desire. But if they were to call me from the Zoo and say they’ll bring one later in the afternoon, then I may have hope. I suggest you look into the three theological virtues, for hope is a virtue, not a whim.

As much as I appreciate Mother Angelica, for she was a wise and saintly woman, doesn’t change the fact that she is just a nun (nuns have no authority in the Church) and was expressing an opinion, though largely accepted, it isn’t a doctrine of the Church. For this we may hope that we get that chance, but it’s not a guarantee. Look into the prophecies from Fatima, and into the appearance of Our Lady of Akita. They both are recognized by the Church, but aren’t doctrine and they don’t belong to the Deposit of Faith. I think you’ll find them illuminating. God bless!

 

[SyroMalankara]

I desire that a giraffe appear in my front yard. I can never hope that, it’s just that, a desire. But if they were to call me from the Zoo and say they’ll bring one later in the afternoon, then I may have hope. I suggest you look into the three theological virtues, for hope is a virtue, not a whim.

Which of the three are you exercising when you focus on who is in hell? Faith? Hope? Charity?

As much as I appreciate Mother Angelica, for she was a wise and saintly woman, doesn’t change the fact that she is just a nun (nuns have no authority in the Church) and was expressing an opinion, though largely accepted, it isn’t a doctrine of the Church.

Before you dismiss her, or canonize her (not sure if the above was a compliment or a slight), she’s still alive as of this moment.

For this we may hope that we get that chance, but it’s not a guarantee. Look into the prophecies from Fatima, and into the appearance of Our Lady of Akita. They both are recognized by the Church, but aren’t doctrine and they don’t belong to the Deposit of Faith. I think you’ll find them illuminating. God bless!

Again, it’s not that anyone - including Fr. Barron - doesn’t recognize the existence of hell and that their are souls there, it’s that we hope, pray, and do what we can to limit that; and knowing that we would, we trust the God would do the same. Ultimately, it’s left to God’s Mercy.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Why is this thread in “non-catholic” sub forum?

Lapsed catholics should not view fr. Barron’s two YouTube videos on Hell. They provide no motivation to change ones life-- after all we are all saved.

Umm, well…How about being motivated to change one’s life because we are “dearly beloved children” who want to be like our Heavenly Father, more so than trying to change because of the motivation of fear of punishment? What are we “saved” for, if not to become like Christ? Was He obedient because He feared Hell?