Fr. Barron and hell?

[oamannous]

Sirach 2 I agree with you. We cannot say who’s in Hell–we don’t know unless one has seen Hell and has seen people in it, and there have been seers who have seen it, been in it and have seen people in it. One seer said she saw pits in Hell for those who were really evil for whatever reason. If Father Barron stated what you have, then I apologize to Father Barron.
Then too, there is faith, and what the Lord has stated that those who lose their souls go to the fires of Gehenna. I’m told those fires are Hell. Also, should we believe in Purgatory? O.A. Manno

 

[tdgesq]

For the sake of accuracy, Fr. Barron does say at the end of the video:

“If anyone is in it [hell], and by the way, the Church is not obliging anyone to believe that a human being is in hell. We just don’t know.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

Can ANYONE show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is EMPTY?

Has anyone made such a claim? I must have missed it. Saying that it is possible is not the same thing as saying it is.

Of course, the Church has never taught that hell is NOT empty either.

Any faithful Catholic is free to personally believe either alternative. You think it is not empty, and so do I (though I think it is probably less crowded than you do). But I don’t care if someone else thinks its empty. In fact, I hope they’re right.

 

[Gorgias]

Universalism is the belief that everyone will go to Heaven. i.e. “Universal” salvation… A typical Universalist simply implies that all humans will be saved

Outstanding. That’s close, but not quite precise enough. If everyone in the world turned toward Christ and accepted Him and lived a Christian lifestyle, then everyone would go to heaven. That, of course, would not be universalism.

Universalism, rather, is the assertion that everyone must go to heaven – that, by definition, God will not (or can not (!)) condemn anyone to hell.

There’s a huge difference there! In the former case, we’re still talking about orthodox Christianity: one must believe in Christ and do all that is necessary, in order to be saved. In the latter, there is no requirement to do or believe anything at all – rather, one gets into heaven ‘just because.’

So… I stand by my assertion (cue Inigo Montoya): ‘universalism’ does not mean what you think it means.

Now… go back to Fr Barron’s video. Does he suggest that no one can be condemned? Of course not! In fact, in the very beginning of the video, he defines universalism and offers a scathing critique of it!

or as Origenism states “universal restoration”… even Satan and the fallen Angels would eventually be saved or restored. Basically Hell became Purgatory.

Right. This is a spin on universalism that attempts to explain how all are saved: it asserts that God only punishes in Hell in order to pave a path to heaven. This, too, is rejected by the Church.

This gets him out of the outright heresy, since he isn’t stating his belief in Universalism with certainty, and he’s only addressing humans and not the fallen angels.

Let’s quote him directly, shall we? He states, “if anyone’s in [hell] – and by the way, the Church is not obliging anyone to believe that a human being is in hell; we just don’t know – but if there is anyone in it, it’s someone who is absolutely insistent on not [participating in God’s love].”

Universalists believe that, by definition, no one goes to hell. (Period; full stop!) If Fr Barron defines that a person who might be in hell is in there because he refuses to participate in God’s love… doesn’t this mean that he’s saying that this possibility exists? By the very definition of universalism, a universalist could never define the kind of person who is in hell – by definition, a universalist would have to say either that there are definitively no persons in hell (or alternately, that the criteria by which a person might go to hell can never be met).

Fr Barron says neither of these things.

Fr Barron simply pulls back a little on the certainty of the statement-- which is officially a heresy-- and instead says there is a reasonable hope that all men might be saved.

Here’s where your argument pulls out of station, sputters, and falls on its side and dies: universalism is only universalism because it is explicitly about certainty. If someone says something about the salvation of humanity, and that statement does not include a statement about certainty, it cannot be a statement about universalism. A statement about “reasonable hope” must, de facto, not be an endorsement of universalism. To suggest otherwise, in this case, either mischaracterizes Fr Barron or mischaracterizes universalism. There’s simply no middle ground in this case; it’s a simple question of understanding the terms and their definitions.

 

[Sirach2]

For the sake of accuracy, Fr. Barron does say at the end of the video:

“If anyone is in it [hell], and by the way, the Church is not obliging anyone to believe that a human being is in hell. We just don’t know.”

And? How does this make him a universalist who claims that all men will be saved, and hell is empty, as so many in this thread allege?

Does this opinion of his, expressing a positive unknowing as to who is in hell, merit public condemnation from the posters in this thread? I don’t know who is in purgatory either, let alone* hell*. Do you know? Does the Church make a solemn proclamation, since She has declined to comment on Judas’ salvation?

We have assurance that there is a hell, and Fr. Barron has clearly stated who goes there and why. Enough said.

 

[tdgesq]

And? How does this make him a universalist who claims that all men will be saved, and hell is empty, as so many in this thread allege?

It doesn’t make him a universalist. That’s my point.

 

[Sirach2]

It doesn’t make him a universalist. That’s my point.

Oh, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Point of clarification. Fr. Gobbi passed away June 29, 2011 and there is absolutely no record of any suspension of his priestly faculties.

Though private revelations such as his are not required belief for the Faithful, these have not been condemned.

However, that is essentially irrelevant to the discussion of Fr. Robert Barron’s video on hell.

Please stay on topic.***

 

[KEP1983]

Again, where does he “say” that? Be specific please; use his exact words.

youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4

The exact time is from 6:45-7:05

“We may pray that all be saved and may even reasonably hope that all may be saved. So it’s a univeralism if you want, but not of the Origen, Barth, or Rob Bell variety, where I know everyone is going to be saved. It’s a theologically grounded reasonable hope that all will be saved.”

Note that Fr Barron even states himself that his belief is a form of universalism. He simply has a reasonable hope rather than a certainty. (Which is exactly what I said in my last post.)

 

[KEP1983]

And? How does this make him a universalist who claims that all men will be saved, and hell is empty, as so many in this thread allege?

Does this opinion of his, expressing a positive unknowing as to who is in hell, merit public condemnation from the posters in this thread?

The problem isn’t him saying “we don’t know who is in Hell.” No one is debating that. Even Protestant fundamentalist’s leave room for the salvation of the Hitler’s of the world, due to last minute conversions. No one is debating that we know specifically who is in Hell.

The problem people have with Fr Barron’s comments is his statement that we have a “**reasonable hope **that all will be saved.”

I don’t know who is in purgatory either, let alone* hell*. Do you know? Does the Church make a solemn proclamation, since She has declined to comment on Judas’ salvation?

Interesting argument. Since we don’t know who, if anyone, is in either Hell or Purgatory, does that mean we can have a reasonable hope that no one is in Purgatory too? Has the Church ever declared any specific people to be in Purgatory? Next time you’re talking to a Protestant, would you tell them that we have a reasonable hope that no one is in Purgatory too, since the Church has never declared anyone to be there?

We have assurance that there is a hell, and Fr. Barron has clearly stated who goes there and why. Enough said.

Since Hell is not a place, but is a state of being; how can there be a Hell with no one in it? That is, if Hell were a place, such a place could be empty. But since Hell is not a place, but is a state of being, such a place cannot exist unless someone is in it.

 

[Gorgias]

Note that Fr Barron even states himself that his belief is a form of universalism.

No… if I had to explain his meaning to someone, I wouldn’t say that he’s conceding that his ‘reasonable hope’ construct is universalism, per se. Rather, “if you want to call ‘reasonable hope’ by the name universalism, fine, go ahead, call it that. But it’s not what universalism is normatively defined as – since universalism, properly speaking, is the realm of Origen, Barth, or Rob Bell – in which I ‘know’ everyone is going to be saved.”

He simply has a reasonable hope rather than a certainty.

And, he concedes, if you really want to call that ‘universalism’, fine, go ahead. But it’s not universalism – at least, not in the way that theologians understand the concept of universalism.

But, let’s suppose that you want to go with this ‘weak definition of universalism’ – that is, the definition of universalism is not “all must go to heaven”, but rather, simply “all go to heaven.” Would we say that Fr Barron agrees that “all go to heaven”? No; we could not. We could say that Fr Barron hopes that all go to heaven – that is, we could say that Fr Barron hopes in weak universalism. But, given his statements, he does not claim that the proposition “all go to heaven” is true. Therefore, even if you want to break the definition of universalism and refashion it in a more weak assertion – even if you do that, you can’t say that Fr Barron stands behind your reconstituted ‘universalism’.

 

[Gorgias]

Since we don’t know who, if anyone, is in either Hell or Purgatory, does that mean we can have a reasonable hope that no one is in Purgatory too?

Actually, yes. But that’s only because your language is insufficiently precise. Purgatory is a transient state; therefore, if at some point, it is true that John Smith is in Purgatory, then it is true that at some (later (!)) point, it is true that John Smith is not in Purgatory, but is instead in Heaven. Therefore, if we posit that some group of people pass through Purgatory, is it possible that, at some arbitrary point, none of these people are in Purgatory? Of course we can!

Now… if you wanted to ask a better question, you might ask “can we have a reasonable hope that no one is ever in Purgatory?” Of course, given that the nature of Purgatory is different from the natures of Heaven and Hell, that question really raises other issues – issues which are irrelevant in the context of the present discussion.

Since Hell is not a place, but is a state of being; how can there be a Hell with no one in it? That is, if Hell were a place, such a place could be empty. But since Hell is not a place, but is a state of being, such a place cannot exist unless someone is in it.

That’s an interesting assertion, but I don’t think that I’d say that it holds. A state of being can be said to exist conceptually, right? Therefore, even if no one may be identified as currently being in that state of being, it exists as a posited concept.

 

[KEP1983]

Outstanding. That’s close, but not quite precise enough. If everyone in the world turned toward Christ and accepted Him and lived a Christian lifestyle, then everyone would go to heaven. That, of course, would not be universalism.

Universalism, rather, is the assertion that everyone must go to heaven – that, by definition, God will not (or can not (!)) condemn anyone to hell.

Not quite. Origenism teaches that people go to Hell, but that everyone-- including Satan and the fallen Angels-- will be restored out of it. This is also a type of Universalism officially condemned by the Church.

In Origenism Hell exists, people go there, but everyone including Satan eventually get out. Hell simply becomes a very long Purgatory.

So no, Universalism doesn’t necessarily teach that no one goes to Hell. You can be a Universalist who believes people go to Hell, but that no one stays there forever.

There’s a huge difference there! In the former case, we’re still talking about orthodox Christianity: one must believe in Christ and do all that is necessary, in order to be saved. In the latter, there is no requirement to do or believe anything at all – rather, one gets into heaven ‘just because.’

In Origenism, everyone in Hell eventually freely chooses to repent and be saved. So you can be a Universalist and believe that it’s still Christ’s work on the cross and our repentance that brings everyone out of Hell.

But Fr Barron is saying that we have a “reasonable hope” that everyone will accept God’s grace and be saved. For his hypothesis to be true, God must flood every soul with so much grace that they can’t possibly reject Him before they die. You can’t die in a state of rejecting Grace and be saved, so for us to have a “reasonable hope that all will be saved,” that means God has to flood souls with grace to the point where they always say yes. Yet there is no Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Council that even hints at this.

So… I stand by my assertion (cue Inigo Montoya): ‘universalism’ does not mean what you think it means.

No, clearly I know more about the various flavors of Univeralism. I’ve studied a ton of theology. Your assertions about what Universalists believe contradicts what Origenism taught, so you’re not aware of all the various teachings of Universalism out there.

Now… go back to Fr Barron’s video. Does he suggest that no one can be condemned? Of course not! In fact, in the very beginning of the video, he defines universalism and offers a scathing critique of it!

No, he does’t say no one can be condemned. Even Origenism teaches that people can be condemned. I’ll shoot it right back at you: I don’t think you actually understand what Universalism is. One can be a Universalist and believe people are condemned.

According to Originem, peole go to Hell, it’s just that they all eventually repent and get out of it. Don’t forget that, even as an orthodox Catholic, the souls in Hell COULD get out of Hell if they repented, but they’re in a state that they never do repent since their choice is sealed.

So Fr Barron isn’t saying that God “couldn’t condemn people.” Even Origenism agrees that God can condemn people. But Fr Barron knows that people in Hell can’t get out. So for everyone to go to Heaven, they have to respond to God’s grace BEFORE death. So according to Fr Barron, God would have to flood every soul with an irresistable amount of grace before each person dies. A person can’t reject God’s grace and go to either Purgatory or Heaven. Yet we see no Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Council even hint at this.

 

[KEP1983]

Let’s quote him directly, shall we? He states, “if anyone’s in [hell] – and by the way, the Church is not obliging anyone to believe that a human being is in hell; we just don’t know – but if there is anyone in it, it’s someone who is absolutely insistent on not [participating in God’s love].”

Universalists believe that, by definition, no one goes to hell

. (Period; full stop!)

Wrong. Many Universalists believe people go to Hell. They just eventually repent and get out after a long long time.

If Fr Barron defines that a person who might be in hell is in there because he refuses to participate in God’s love… doesn’t this mean that he’s saying that this possibility exists?

He’s saying there’s a possibility, but that we have a “reasonable hope that all will be saved.” The problem is the “reasonable hope.” As Fr Barron said himself, it’s a “type of universalism if you want.” He himself says his belief is a type of universalism at 6:51
youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4

By the very definition of universalism, a universalist could never define the kind of person who is in hell – by definition, a universalist would have to say either that there are definitively no persons in hell (or alternately, that the criteria by which a person might go to hell can never be met

).

As stated, many Universalists believe in Hell, and that people actually go there.

Fr Barron doesn’t come right out and say that no one is in Hell. He knows that’s heretical. He pulls back a bit and says we have a “reasonable hope” that no one is in Hell. It’s a newer position that’s not (yet) condemned by the Church. But the fact is that it’s extremely close to Universalism, and there’s no Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Councils, or even Doctors of the Church that even comes close to supporting the position.

Here’s where your argument pulls out of station, sputters, and falls on its side and dies: universalism is only universalism because it is explicitly about certainty

.

Perhaps you’re not reading what I’ve said. I never accused Fr Barron of stating he was certain about Universalism. He said we have a “reasonable hope” of Universalism. It’s not technically heretical, since the Church doesn’t go around ruling on every single idea ever coming out, the Church has never addressed it yet. But the reality is that Fr Barron himself says its’ a type of Universalism and even admits it’s close to Barth and Rob Bell’s position, just that he doesn’t state it with certainty.

If someone says something about the salvation of humanity, and that statement does not include a statement about certainty, it cannot be a statement about universalism

. A statement about “reasonable hope” must, de facto, not be an endorsement of universalism.

Wrong. Fr Barron himself says his belief is a type of Universalism.

To suggest otherwise, in this case, either mischaracterizes Fr Barron or mischaracterizes universalism. There’s simply no middle ground in this case; it’s a simple question of understanding the terms and their definitions.

I’ve accurately represented both Fr Barron and Origenism/Universalism. Fr Barron himself says that his belief is a type of Universalism. That’s good enough for me to state that he’s a Universalist who lacks absolute certainty.

A Protestant who isn’t absolutely certain that the Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Christ doesn’t therefore make him a Catholic. A Muslim who isn’t absolutely certain that Jesus wasn’t just a Prophet doesn’t therefore make him a Christian. An abortionist who isn’t absolutely certain that a fetus isn’t just a blob of tissue doesn’t make him pro-life. A Universalist who isn’t absolutely certain about Universalism doesn’t therefore make him an orthodox Catholic.

I love Fr Barron. I’m subscribed to his podcast and have watched all his shows on TV. But this video is scandalous. I appreciate the heart behind it and wanting to sound kind and loving.

 

[ORayMoose]

I have not taken the time to read every message in this thread, but in case no one has yet posted it, here is Fr. Barron’s 9-minute YouTube video on the existence of hell and who might or might not be there. It is one of his best.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4

He gives his own views at the end, but also a fascinating summary of the views of great theological scholars through the centuries. Really good stuff.

 

[KEP1983]

Actually, yes. But that’s only because your language is insufficiently precise. Purgatory is a transient state; therefore, if at some point, it is true that John Smith is in Purgatory, then it is true that at some (later (!)) point, it is true that John Smith is not in Purgatory, but is instead in Heaven. Therefore, if we posit that some group of people pass through Purgatory, is it possible that, at some arbitrary point, none of these people are in Purgatory? Of course we can!

Now… if you wanted to ask a better question, you might ask “can we have a reasonable hope that no one is ever in Purgatory?” Of course, given that the nature of Purgatory is different from the natures of Heaven and Hell, that question really raises other issues – issues which are irrelevant in the context of the present discussion.

You’re simply playing word games. If it follows that we can have a reasonable hope that no one is in Hell since the Church has never declared any specific people in Hell, then we can say the same thing for Purgatory. The Church has never declared anyone as being in Purgatory-- either in the past or present. Therefore, we can have a reasonable hope that no one is in Purgatory, either past or present. How do you know anyone has committed a mortal or venial sin, and not had sufficient purification before death? Has the Church ever officially declared that any specific person was not fully purified before death? Perhaps everyone is fully purified before death, so we have a reasonable hope that no one ever goes through purgatory? Perhaps it also just exists conceptually?

That’s an interesting assertion, but I don’t think that I’d say that it holds. A state of being can be said to exist conceptually, right? Therefore, even if no one may be identified as currently being in that state of being, it exists as a posited concept.

Something existing conceptually does not mean it objectively exists. This should be obvious. Atheism conceptually exists, but doesn’t objectively exist. Little green aliens conceptually exist, but don’t objectively exist. Flying pigs conceptually exist,but don’t actually exist.

For a state of being to objectively exist, it has to go beyond the realm of conceptually existing and into actually existing.

The Church teaches that Hell actually exists, and is not just an abstract concept. It’s also taught that Hell is not a physical place, but is an actual real state of being. Therefore, since Hell is not a place but a state of being, there would have to be people objectively in the state of being for it to objectively exist.

 

[Sirach2]

While it is tempting to continue this discussion, I find that this thread, with over 100 posts, many of which rail against a worthy priest over a 4-year old video that doesn’t quite measure up to their standards, to be over the top in charity.
I trust you’ll excuse me.

 

[KEP1983]

While it is tempting to continue this discussion, I find that this thread, with over 100 posts, many of which rail against a worthy priest over a 4-year old video that doesn’t quite measure up to their standards, to be over the top in charity.
I trust you’ll excuse me.

I’m not railing against Fr Barron. I love his work. I’m subscribed to his podcast and I’ve seen all of his TV shows. He’s a great, intelligent priest. I simply think he’s wrong on this issue. That doesn’t mean I, or anyone else, is “railing against him.”

The view, by his own admission, is a type of universalism. He stated it himself. He literally stated it’s a “type of universalism.” He also openly stated that we have a “reasonable hope that all may be saved.” Is it heretical? No. Is it the Churches historical teaching? No. Is it orthodox? No. Is there any hint of it in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Councils, or the Doctors of the Church? No.

We love Fr Barron, but we don’t think he should be straying so far from the churches historical teaching, even if the teaching is not explicitly condemned.

 

[Gorgias]

Wrong. Many Universalists believe people go to Hell. They just eventually repent and get out after a long long time.

That’s ‘apocatastasis’ – the belief that hell isn’t really ‘hell’, but a kind of ‘purgatory’, through which people (and demons and Satan himself) suffer and are ‘restored’ and saved. If you want to divorce hell from the notion of ‘eternal damnation’ and still call it ‘hell’, that’s your business. It’s difficult to read you telling me that I’m playing word games if you’re going to tell me that universalists believe in hell…

As Fr Barron said himself, it’s a “type of universalism if you want.” He himself says his belief is a type of universalism

Here, you both misquote Fr Barron and then take it a step further to mischaracterize what he said. The quote, in fact, is “so, it’s a universalism if you want”. He’s not saying that his assertion is a “type of universalism” – those are words that you are putting in his mouth. Rather, his statement is a concession – “fine. if you must call it ‘universalism’, call it ‘universalism’… but it’s not a universalism that says that ‘all go to heaven’” … and it’s precisely that kind of universalism – one that says that it must be the case that all attain to heaven – that folks are railing against here.

Perhaps you’re not reading what I’ve said. I never accused Fr Barron of stating he was certain about Universalism.

You’ve taken the notion of ‘certainty’ outside of the definition of universalism; therefore, what you say about ‘certainty’ – over and again in your post – is a non sequitur. The notion of certainty is critical to universalism. I never suggested that you said that Fr Barron was “certain about universalism;” rather, I claimed that universalism – which is all about certainty – is not what Fr Barron is talking about. The difference between the two assertions is clear. Even Fr Barron realizes that some will miscast what he says as ‘universalism’, and so he says what he says (even though you misquote him, because you’re hearing what you want to hear, and not what he actually says).

He said we have a “reasonable hope” of Universalism.

No… he said that there is a reasonable hope that all will be saved. Big difference. The former is your assertion; the latter is his.

But the reality is that Fr Barron himself says its’ a type of Universalism

Again: your words and his words don’t match up. They’re close, but not the same. That’s critical.

even admits it’s close to Barth and Rob Bell’s position, just that he doesn’t state it with certainty.

Again, you’re misusing the notion of ‘certainty’. ‘Certainty’ is integral here – not because a person is ‘certain’ of the particular notion of salvation, but because this notion (universalism) is one that posits certainty.

I’ve accurately represented both Fr Barron and Origenism/Universalism. Fr Barron himself says that his belief is a type of Universalism. That’s good enough for me to state that he’s a Universalist who lacks absolute certainty.

And I’ve demonstrated that you both misquote him and mischaracterize his statements. That’s good enough for me to state that you’re mistaken. With absolute certainty.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re simply playing word games.

If by ‘word games’, you mean ‘logic’, then guilty as charged.

If it follows that we can have a reasonable hope that no one is in Hell since the Church has never declared any specific people in Hell, then we can say the same thing for Purgatory.

Of course not. The Church has also never declared that coconut cream pie exists; can we use that to assert that the Church says that no one has ever eaten coconut cream pie? Of course not.

Something existing conceptually does not mean it objectively exists. This should be obvious. Atheism conceptually exists, but doesn’t objectively exist. Little green aliens conceptually exist, but don’t objectively exist. Flying pigs conceptually exist,but don’t actually exist.

Atheism is a belief system; little green aliens and flying pigs are (posited) creatures. None are “states of being.” If you wish to make a comparison, you might do well to make a valid comparison.

For a state of being to objectively exist, it has to go beyond the realm of conceptually existing and into actually existing.

Anselm (and a host of philosophers, including Descartes, Leibniz, Godel, and Plantinga) would disagree with you. Aquinas would disagree with you, too, but would assert that only God could know these “states of being” of which we cannot have definitive knowledge as humans.