P
PizzatheHut
Guest
Let us recall the Syllabus of Errors, number 17, in which the following proposition is condemned: "
“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc."
Also there’s Lumen Gentium 16, which says, “Some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
Note that LG 16 says that “there are” some who wind up dying in final despair without God, and then goes on to cite this as one of the reasons for the urgency of the Great Commission, which is in accord with Tradition: the Gospel must be preached in order to save souls from Hell.
According to Bl. Pius IX, not mention Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Fr. Barron is a heretic plain and simple.
Lets start with the a good definition of a heretic. This is from New Advent.
“Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).” Let us recall the Syllabus of Errors, number 17, in which the following proposition is condemned:
To what exact degree Fr. Barron is I will leave up to someone else, nevertheless it is what it is. Heresy plain and simple. “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.” (Matt. 7:13). He does not suggest that there are many for whom it is possible that they go to destruction but do not actually go; He says “many there are who go through it.” Many means many. Many does not mean “nobody.” “Lord, are only few people going to be saved?” “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.” (Lk 13:23-24) “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Rev. 20:10).
Also for those who assert that Pope Benedict taught this Balthasar nonsense in “Spe Salvi” that is also false which I would be happy to discuss in another post. Asumming this post wont be deleted like the last one. I welcome any honest discussion on this issue.
This “Empty Hell Theology” is a novelty, toyed with early on by Origen and then virtually abandoned until the modern era. The amount of legerdemain and re interpretive manipulation one has to do to Scripture, Magisterial teaching, history and tradition in order to breathe life into the theories of Fr. Barron and Balthasar on this question is appalling. Origen was also a heretic fyi.
Pax.
“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc."
Also there’s Lumen Gentium 16, which says, “Some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
Note that LG 16 says that “there are” some who wind up dying in final despair without God, and then goes on to cite this as one of the reasons for the urgency of the Great Commission, which is in accord with Tradition: the Gospel must be preached in order to save souls from Hell.
According to Bl. Pius IX, not mention Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Fr. Barron is a heretic plain and simple.
Lets start with the a good definition of a heretic. This is from New Advent.
“Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).” Let us recall the Syllabus of Errors, number 17, in which the following proposition is condemned:
To what exact degree Fr. Barron is I will leave up to someone else, nevertheless it is what it is. Heresy plain and simple. “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.” (Matt. 7:13). He does not suggest that there are many for whom it is possible that they go to destruction but do not actually go; He says “many there are who go through it.” Many means many. Many does not mean “nobody.” “Lord, are only few people going to be saved?” “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.” (Lk 13:23-24) “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Rev. 20:10).
Also for those who assert that Pope Benedict taught this Balthasar nonsense in “Spe Salvi” that is also false which I would be happy to discuss in another post. Asumming this post wont be deleted like the last one. I welcome any honest discussion on this issue.
This “Empty Hell Theology” is a novelty, toyed with early on by Origen and then virtually abandoned until the modern era. The amount of legerdemain and re interpretive manipulation one has to do to Scripture, Magisterial teaching, history and tradition in order to breathe life into the theories of Fr. Barron and Balthasar on this question is appalling. Origen was also a heretic fyi.
Pax.
).