The following is from a July 21 Whispers in the Loggia blog post by Rocco Palmo:
For some years now, Fr Robert Barron’s champions have lionized the Chicago-based New Evangelization guru as this age’s answer to Fulton Sheen.
Suffice it to say, the prophecy’s panned out.
In a stunning move, at Roman Noon this Tuesday, the Pope named the 55 year-old rector/president of the Windy City’s Mundelein Seminary as one of three auxiliary bishops for the nation’s largest local church — the 5 million-member archdiocese of Los Angeles — alongside two of its most well-regarded mainstays: Monsignor Joseph Brennan, 61, the career pastor turned lead vicar-general to Archbishop José Gomez, and the Irish-born Monsignor David O’Connell, 61, whose decades of ministry in LA’s violence-torn South Central corridor arguably comprise the Stateside bench’s most potent example yet of the “peripheries” Francis insistently wants present at the church’s center.
While each bishop-elect brings a compelling story, to use one op’s term, the appointment of Barron is likely to “suck the air out of the room” far beyond the three-county SoCal juggernaut, now the largest diocese in American Catholicism’s five centuries of existence. A protege of the late Cardinal Francis George (whose own successor in Chicago some leading prelates hoped Barron would be), the nominee’s Word on Fire ministry of films, widely circulated, conservative-leaning columns and YouTube commentaries have made him a household name in church circles as well as one of the US fold’s most popular speakers, and now, the highest-profile Stateside priest to enter the episcopacy since one Timothy Michael Dolan became an auxiliary of his native St Louis in 2001 after seven years of taking Rome by storm as rector of the Pontifical North American College.
Along these lines, Barron is one of the few incoming US bishops who’s already appeared before his new confreres as a speaker, having served as spiritual director for the bench’s 2013 summer retreat. Yet even as the calculus behind his Western move remains a mystery, its seismic impact on two of the nation’s three largest dioceses is immediate: in LA, the bishop-elect heads to the most influential seat of pop culture on earth, his “rock star” talents for communication (and, indeed, fund-raising) on-hand to shore up a sometimes restive Anglo minority in the trenches, while in the 2.3 million-member Chicago church, the leadership of Mundelein – long regarded as the “crown jewel” of American seminaries, currently the US’ third-largest formation house – now falls vacant for Archbishop Blase Cupich to fill just nine months into his tenure, a pick with implications across the Midwest.
All that said, now comes the interesting part. With Brennan likely to remain at the helm of the Chancery – which was recently reconfigured into nine core departments reporting to him – Barron and O’Connell are expected to take up duties as regional bishops each overseeing one of the LA behemoth’s five pastoral areas. On their own, four of the regions have at least a million Catholics – a figure which would place each region among the US church’s 15 largest outposts – and given the massive scope of the larger local fold, the regions essentially function as five mini-dioceses. How that ministry will mesh with Barron’s wider purview remains to be seen, but in a statement released this morning by Word on Fire, the bishop-elect said “the short answer is that” his media work “will certainly continue” as the apostolate’s staff “will keep bringing you my regular articles, sermons, videos, and media resources.”
On the local front, meanwhile, it might seem unusual for a diocese that’s now no less than 70 percent Hispanic to receive three Anglo appointees, and as the first round chosen by a Mexican-born archbishop at that. Beyond further evidence of a pressing national demand for Latino candidates that far outstrips its supply, however, the nods for Brennan and O’Connell – both fluent in Spanish and with broad experience in Hispanic communities – manifest the almost unique degree to which LA’s Anglo clergy has proven fully effective at ministering to what’s become the archdiocese’s ethnic supermajority, the lead force behind its doubling in size over the last 25 years.
Said effectiveness is especially apparent in O’Connell’s case. Having done double duty in South Central pastoring an African-American parish alongside a Hispanic one, the Irish emigré has won wide acclaim for his work on fronts ranging from immigration to unemployment and South LA’s notorious history of gang violence. Hailed as an exemplar of the priesthood in a 2002 LATimes profile as the clergy sex-abuse crisis made national headlines, the candid cleric likewise made a wave of a different sort in the piece with an indirectly cited statement that “women should be ordained and clergy should be able to marry.”
“If there had been some parents in there running things,” O’Connell said then in reference to abuse and its cover-up, “none of this would have ever happened.”
Fr. Robert Barron is a heretic. He calls JESUS a liar by disagreeing with Him.
JESUS teaches that “Many will NOT be saved; “Few” will be saved. Mt 7:13-14; and Lk 13:23-28.
Barron publically and scandalously teaches that we can reasonably hope that all are saved because God wants us in Heaven.
“Fr. Robert Barron on Whether Hell is Crowded or Empty – YouTube”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4
Barron agrees with excommunicated Origin, rather than Jesus.
Jose, please tell me what is wrong with Fr. Barron’s idea that Jesus would like us all to be in heaven with him. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Now, those who die in a state of Mortal sin will not go to heaven according to Church teaching. The Church teaches in the Catechism that heaven is for all who Love God and die in a state of Grace. It also teaches that “God predestines no one to go to hell”. Even our Liturgy prays that He will grant us His peace and save us from final damnation. God wants us in Heaven!!
BobOne, what you have posted is not what Barron teaches. As usual you twist the truth, and this time regarding Barron’s public statements.
Barron teaches that we can hope almost everyone will be in Heaven. This calls Jesus a liar.
Read Mt. 7:13-14; and Lk 23-28 for the words of JESUS.
BobOne, it is true that God wants all of us to be in heaven. He wants us all to repent of our sins, and do His will.
However this is not the teaching of Barron. Barron as most heretics mix truth with falsehood.
Barron teaches that we can hope that almost everyone is in Heaven.
Barron is contradictory to the teachings of GOD – JESUS.
GOD said that MANY will not be SAVED, FEW will be SAVED.
It is wrong to call GOD a LIAR by contradicting Him.
Mt 7:13-14; Lk 13:23-18 for the words of GOD.
Mt 7:13-14 does not say what you are interpreting it to say.
Neither does Lk 13.
Mac, I invite you to read the Forward to Fr. Baron’s new book. It is written by Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, wherein he praises Fr. Baron for his outstanding scholarship, theology, evangelism, and knowledge of liturgy and culture. In other words, an outstanding example of a devout Priest. Perhaps those of us without advanced degrees in theology, myself included, need to stop harping on theology.
…perhaps those with ‘advanced’ degrees in theology need to get their head back to the basics – like teaching Faith and Morals – instead of looking at the could-be,might-be spin of perpetual academia.
You may consider it harping, but those with eyes, ears, families,duties, etc need Faith and Morals to raise solid families and pass down the Faith.
Do you know what theology is?
CCC: ” 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.
Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”
The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. ”
Barron teaches that we can reasonably hope everyone is in Heaven. Jesus teaches the opposite.
Jose, the citation that you reference teaches the opposite of the way you read it. It says that only those in a state of mortal sin go to hell. Jesus does not teach that everyone will go to hell. So, as the Church teaches, those who do not die in a state of mortal sin can reasonably hope to be in Heaven. You are preaching false, and made up doctrine.
BobOne, your trying to purposely confuse people is the work of the devil.
Jesus teaches that “MANY” will NOT be saved.
Jesus teaches that “FEW” will be saved.
Mt.7:13-14 and Lk 13:23-28
This means that MANY will die in the state of mortal sin. FEW will die in the state of grace.
Do you believe Jesus or Barron ?
Those scripture verses do NOT say that many will not be saved or that few will be saved. You are altering them.
Fr Barron said “We may reasonable hope that all people will be saved” not in Heaven. It is hope in God not a refutation of Catholic Doctrine.
There is only one place to be saved from, correct ?
Joe, where is your HOPE in the Risen Christ? He came and died to forgive our sins and to ensure that if we love Him (obey his commandments, live without mortal sin) we can have a reasonable hope of joining Him in heaven. That is the basic tenant of the Catholic faith. Everything else is an aid to help us attain that goal. Our HOPE is that we will be with God for eternity!
What I have been taught is yes everyone has a chance of making I into Heaven. I just question the percentage approach especially when Christ himself says “very few will enter”. I believe that Father Barrons watered down Catholicism is misleading which leads Catholics to follow our faith lack luster at best.
St Joseph went to hell?
I question Anonymous, what seed are you trying to sow, one that prosper or one that starts trouble. I would anticipate some sort of watered down comment in return.
Actually, Joe, I think this particular “Anonymous” (723/15, 10:03 am) posts under a different name when it suits him; it is the same kind of scurrilous question-format employed, intended to distract from facts and truth.
Joe and also Jose, you of course are spot-on about hell and the number of those saved: At least one person is in hell: Our Lord says so (Jn 17:12: “Not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost.” (Judas) As for Mt. 7:13-14 & Lk 13:13-28, there is no possible way to read this except as an admonition that many will be lost, few will be saved, and that is the traditional Cath. interpretation. Even Catholic.com, which is fairly influenced by the New Church says the same on these passages:
https://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is
I don’t know if Pope JP2 matters any more, since it seems all his moral teaching belongs to a different Church than the emerging New Church, but this is what he said regarding hell and those being saved:
“In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell..” -JP2, “Crossing the Threshhold of Hope”, p. 185-186
So, it appears (1) not everyone is saved and (2) some at least are in hell. But the best argument is that, if Von Baltasar is right, nothing matters: but if Joe and Jose are right, there will be hell to pay.
Joe, do you not believe in Purgatory or the abode of the dead or limbo?
Maybe that is watering it down to you.
Are you Catholic?
No need for those in LA to attend Mass, go to Confession, or repent of our sins.
Because Fr. Barron teaches that we can hope almost everyone is in Heaven due to God’s mercy, and God wants us all in Heaven.
It does not matter what Jesus taught about the need for repentance, or what the Church teaches about Souls going to Hell if they die in Mortal sin,
or what St. Faustina was allowed to see in Hell.
Barron is smarter than God and the Church. WOW !
How did you like his EWTN series on becoming holy? Or his book on the 7 deadly sins? Any of his other books? His Catholicism series that was shown on PBS? What have you done to evangelize?
Father Barron never told people they do not have to go to Mass or Confession or repent of sins. These are heresies and YOU just said them. (Sarcasm is the language of the devil, isn’t it?)
I agree that empty hell is an error and I have seen other errors in his work. If you want to make sure the truth is told, you will have to learn it and teach it.
Usually but not always, people are heretical in one or a few things.
Rather than many things.
” I agree that empty hell is an error and I have seen other errors in his work.” – per you.
This is not an error. When taught publically it is heresy and scandal.
It violates the teachings of Jesus in Sacred Scripture.
What verse?
I’m getting a bit peeved at the misrepresentations that y’all are using against Bishop-elect Barron. He NEVER said all are going to heaven. Never. I watched his lengthy video. He absolutely said that hell exists, as catholic dogma requires of all of us. What he said is that their is a REASONABLE HOPE that all are saved. REASONABLE HOPE is not the same as saying that their is an absolute certainty. I have a REASONABLE HOPE that when I go to Las Vegas next month, I will return with more money than I will bring with me. REASONABLE HOPE, in that case, is probably 40-60, depending on my odds at the games I will play.
YFC, it is NOT a REASONABLE HOPE that all (or most) are saved.
Unless you think GOD / JESUS is a liar.
GOD said “MANY” will not be saved; GOD said “FEW” will be saved.
Mt 7:13-14; Lk 13:23-28.
Now if you do not believe that JESUS is GOD, you can reasonably hope that all or most are saved.
Do you believe that JESUS is GOD ?
Amen.
Revelation 7:9-10
Stating that there is a reasonable hope that ‘all’ are saved, YFC, is intimating that none will be lost. (Perhaps more will be saved than we think, but intimating that ‘all’ will be saved without the requisite correspondence to God’s mercy is a negation of mercy and Christ’s call to conversion.) So whereas your scenario would imply that you have a reasonable hope of coming home with more money than what you came with – depending upon how and what you play – you cannot reasonably hope to return with *all* the money in Las Vegas.
Ya’ll might want to be a bit more precise when defending imprecision. Goes a long way to avoid becoming peeved.
YFC writes, “I’m getting a bit peeved at the misrepresentations that y’all are using against Bishop-elect Barron.”
The father of lies does not want anyone to believe in the existence of hell. So when YFC comes out of the lavender shaded woodwork to scold “y’all” and then show his comradeship with anyone who soft sells hell, “at least as a possibility,” (5: 54 minutes into the video) that alone is cause for more concern.
Father Barron called St. Thomas Aquinas’s view of hell, dark. Praise be to God and His Angels and his Saints that they did not paint the view that the devil is a candy striper brimming with pastoral sensitivity.
Yes, I was pondering if this article was going to make known soon-to-be Bp. David O’Connell’s condemned position on women’s ordination (Ordination Sacerdotalis, 1994, JP2). Now if a man who has never renounced his position, i.e., significantly failing to adhere to the Catholic faith in whole or in part, can be a Pope-Francis bishop “in union”, by what standard are other independent trad groups’ bishops heretics and schismatics, hmm? And in union with O’Connell is in union with what? So tell me again why we have to accept [the mysteriously new] V2 Council?
V II Is not at fault. The Pope is at fault and has to take full responsibility for all his own actions and inactions (omissions), as we all do. No Pope is without sin.
When in doubt regarding violations of the Doctrine of the Faith, check the
“CCC 2nd ed” of 1997.
CCC: “1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”
The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this…
Good comments TED B
Steve,
Do you have proof of Bishop-elect O’Connell’s errant teaching that you can share with the rest of us?
Just asking.
Joe
Please read for yourself the 6/22/2002 LA Times article written by Mary McNamara (which is partly cited in this story by CCD) in which “Bp.” O’Connell stated “..Women should be ordained and clergy should be able to marry.” (in response to the abuse crisis in the Church he asserted this) “If there had been some parents in there running things,” He has never corrected that position regarding pro-ordination of women and married clergy. Better yet, Joseph Sadlier, why don’t you ask him yourself, instead of asking me?
Better yet, ask Abp. Gomez about David G. O’Connell: I am sure he’ll be able to supply you with an answer.
Thank you, Steve Phoenix! The L.A. Times article states that Monsignor O’Connell said that women should be ordained. This is extremely troubling. Who is guarding the Deposit of Faith? The title of the L.A. Times article was ‘Taking His Vows to Heart.’ So IOW openly proclaiming disobedience, (which encourages others to also be disloyal by enabling more ungodly rage from the feminist underminers of Church teaching) IS ‘Taking His Vows to Heart’ ? Repeated examples of such disloyalty only teach the faithful that there is a hidden goal to gradually lead others away from the Fullness of Truth.
continued…
continued…
Jesus was NOT a woman. A woman can NEVER be an alter Christus. Compromising shepherds now think that they are wiser than God.
Then when addressing the sex abuse scandals Monsignor O’Connell is quoted in the same article stating:
“I think they are angry that the church has not done the right thing,” he says. “I think they, like a lot of us, just want a *simple acknowledgment that things were done wrong*, a sincere apology and a promise to get to the real problems.” – Monsignor David O’Connell L.A. Times
continued…
continued..
In the same 2002 article, Monsignor O’Connell talked about sincerity and a “promise to get to the real problems” but St. John Chrysostom already got to the “real problem” when he mercifully warned Monsignor David O’Connell and all future priests and compromising bishops to remember THIS: “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
continued…
continued..
The real problem IS a shameful lack of fidelity in upholding and defending “all” Church teaching. Yes, the faithful want more than a “simple acknowledgment” and a sincere apology from now Bishop O’Connell for NOT doing the right thing in that article. Otherwise the same distrust that is due and coupled along with the scandals will be necessary. Our saints have warned us! If a priest or newly appointed auxiliary bishop cannot even be faithful in the understanding that women cannot be ordained then this is just more evidence of the sheer disobedience that fostered, enabled and protected the scandals. There IS a definite correlation!
You did notice that the sentence where it said “women should be ordained” in the LA Times article was NOT in quotes. It was the thought of the author of the piece. We have no other evidence (even in Scripture, two witnesses are required) that he actually believes that. He can’t be that hard to get a hold of. Can you not ask him?
False. David O’Connell’s position stated to Mary McNamara and clearly recorded by her in the 2002 article was that he believes in women’s ordination and married priesthood. OConnell has never made any attempt to correct the record: meaning that is his position. He himself is “the 2nd witness”.
This is a clear effort to negate objective facts: denial of the truth when one doesn’t like facts.
Can you find anything where he promoted women’s ordination? A half a sentence in a 13 year old article in the LA TIMES (!!!!!!) does not convince me.
When one is in denial of objective fact, nothing would ever be found convincing. The facts, however, remain.
Pope Francis has excommunicated priests for promoting women’s ordination. Do we have anything other than 1/2 sentence in a secular paper that says Fr. O’Connell believes in it?
This is clearly missing the point (re. O’Connell’s open support of a condemned position): the anti-Catholic LA Times recognizes an ally when they spot one: Msgr. O’Connell in 2002 account clearly asserted to the LA Times reporter he supported women’s ordination and married clergy.
You can bet this is why he was selected by PF (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JP2, 1994 notwithstanding): because this dovetails perfectly with PF’s next move, according to Norberto Saracco, a Pentecostal minister quoted in the Aug 2015 Natl Geo article regarding PF on priestly celibacy, “I think after [the coming Oct. Synod] he will be ready to talk about celibacy.” O’Connell is marching to the right drumbeat.
See how the bad promotes the bad! The V2 Church is truly protestant.
Jerry your comments are truly protestant. Think about it.
Father Barron! Wow, what a great addition to the leadership of the Diocese. Undoubtedly, Father Barron is seeking more leadership/administrative experience in the Church in order more up in the hierarchy. I suspect he’ll be a cardinal some day.
What is happening with the other Auxiliary Bishops of Los Angeles? I realize San Gabriel is vacant.
Lets pray for Mundelein. Our seminaries desperately need strong and faithful leadership.
Father Barron’s “Word on Fire’ video series “Catholicism” was arguably the most successful public relations / Evangelization program of this ‘modern’ era.
Via PBS and other outlets, he brought Much of the Truth of the Church and its teachings to the attention of millions who would never have known anything other than lamesteam media stories.
His program at least did mention the Uganda Martyrs like Charles Lwanga put to death for failure to submit to homosex with the King.
SEE
The Christian Martyrs of Uganda
http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htm
The 22 Catholic martyrs were indeed canonized by Pope Paul VI
It is rather funny, in an odd way, that each of these three men is wearing an identical pectoral cross, and that it’s a copy of the Holy Father’s cross.
Does someone expect them to be clones of Pope Francis?
Too, if memory serves, the bishop’s pectoral cross was SUPPOSED to be made of gold, and contain a relic on the One True Cross.
Did all this change???
Fr. Barron’s appointment is a tragedy. First, now Abp. Cupich will surely appoint a co-heretic to head Mundelein Seminary (although Barron was not much better). Second, Barron is simply a poor theologian. His oft-repeated statement about there be a “reasonable hope” that all are saved is more than a bit off.
In fact, the happy-sounding Barron is likely a bigger scandal-maker than the outright heretic. But, that is the Vatican for you (and the Pope). These appointments mark Francis for the poor Catholic thinker and planner that he is; a Latin American Marxist to whom the Church is a political party, not Christ’s promised route to salvation.
Rubbish! Fr. Barron is one of the most orthodox heads of a seminary in the nation. He headed a seminary where thirty plus dioceses sent their students who were to become priests. His scholastic credentials are superb and his theological degrees are the best. Don’t you think that all of his media was reviewed before the announcement. The Pope wasn’t opting for an unknown. He chose a great communicator. Another future bishop is known for his work in the dangerous neighborhoods of LA and the third is a proven administrator. Are all Catholics supposed to be unhappy sounding?
May God forgive you for slandering Pope Francis!
Your xenophobia is evident in your disparaging remarks (“poor Catholic thinker…a Latin American Marxist…”).
You would probably be happy with a nice, white, Republican Pope from Mississippi.
If you want to defend the Holy Father, Anonymous, try to explain away what would usually seem an offense. You do a disservice to Francis by being ‘judgmental’ and making rash assumptions. You assume that Latin American Marxist is a slur when in reality it could be seen as the proper excuse for otherwise confusing behavior. Like stating that one is ill or under the influence rather than stating they are of ill will and being intentionally malicious.
If the Pope can excuse a hammer and sickle crucifix, who are you to be so condemnatory of what, for all intents and purposes, looks to be born of Latin American Marxism? Protest papacy perhaps? Who knows?
It was about time the race-card was played.
If he was a Faithful Catholic and happen to be a nice Caucasian person and a registered Republican that was born in Mississippi. I’m on board with it! I’m not racist like you Anonymous.
Fr. Barron is similar to Cardinal Dolan, of New York, in personality and style. I have always lamented BOTH, for their entertaining “media personalities,” and errors in the Faith! (Will Cupich replace Fr. Barron at Mundelein– with some liberal goofball?? So sad!) Well– I prefer a cleric like Abp. Fulton J. Sheen, as a Catholic teacher in the media, because he is faithful and true to Christ, 100%! But those great men are now gone, sadly, from our Church! However, despite everything– it would be nice, if Fr. Barron’s famous Catholic media work, could still do some good for Christ, in his new post! (Oh, how I MISS Churchmen like Abp. Fulton J. Sheen!)
Linda Maria, I agree with your prayer that Bishop-elect Baron’s media work will continue to do some good. He is often referred to as the “Fulton J. Sheen of the Internet”. He was picked, I’m sure, because of the great work he has done to update the curriculum at the seminary, his communications ministry, and his highly respected orthodox teachings. A good example of his work is his new book that has a Forward by Archbishop Chaput, one of the most conservative of our Bishops, and one with a great amount of influence on who is chosen for Bishop in our country. It’s a new world, perhaps we all need new heroes.
Bob One– I had no idea, that Fr. Barron was referred to as the “Fulton J. Sheen of the Internet!” But modern-day media, including the Internet — all are meaningless, to me. I also will say, that I have always admired Abp. Chaput! I think the world needs badly, to accept our Judeo-Christian foundations– and to live by Christ’s teachings, and convert the rest of the world! I think our Church badly needs to accurately practice our Faith, and govern by the Code of Canon Law– not by a Pope “trying to be nice,” yet lie, about Christ’s teachings, to make “errant sheep” “feel accepted,” and “feel good!”
BobOne can not be trusted. He makes things up.
does not quote Church documents accurately,
and quotes those who spout nonsense.
I will add something, to my above post. Cardinal Burke is a hero of mine– he has always practiced our Faith properly, and stood up for Christ’s holy teachings! Yet, the Pope has ostracized him, stupidly and cruelly! Cardinal Burke is a hero– I wish he were our Holy Father, instead of Pope Francis! There are many outstanding, saintly heroes of our Faith, in today’s world— who are tragically being persecuted and killed, in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia! In the West, Catholics and many other Christians– do not have that kind of dedication, and courage! All they want, is an easy, sinful, immature, immoral life, and no true dedication to Christ, at all!
Linda Marie, I tried to find an address where you could contact him but the old one is gone. He is known to answer his letters so see if you can find one. He will tell you the truth and not to believe the hogwash on the Internet. He and the Holy Father just met last month. (He will use a much more elegant term than hogwash.)
Anonymous–If Fr. Barron wants to use the modern media, including the Internet, to evangelize– fine! That is what most people of today, would like to do! And that is a good way, for priests to evangelize, and do God’s work! But as for me, I am not a fan of modern media. I prefer “old-fashioned” newspapers, magazines and journals, and books– plus, anything in print, nothing electronic! I’d LOVE it, if the electronic media world, would completely disappear!!
I meant Catdinal Burke.
Bob One– I still hope, anyway, that Fr. Barron will do a lot of good, in his new role as Auxiliary Bishop, for the Los Angele Archdiocese.
Why no Gold on your crucifixes excellencies? In fact the Francisco 1st cross is not a crucifix because Chirst is not not nailed to the cross but rather walking leisurely among his sheep. I could have bought one cheaply in Rome last year, but upon serious reflection I decided it looked as a 1970s bottle opener.
I am left wondering whether the awful auxilliary Bishop Thomas Curran is still in power after recommending as Cardinal Roger Mahoney’s vicar that pederast priests should only consult psychotherapists that were also lawyers do that the client-privilege secrecy would apply and all could be kept underdwraps. Cardinal Mahoney and Bp. Thomas Curry settled the lawsuits stemming this perversity for only $640,000,000.
Oh, you wicked Gratias! Your simile of PF’s crazy shepherd-at-leisure cross looking like a “1970’s bottle-opener” truly made me laugh aloud! A severe penance for you!
I don’t like their pectoral crosses, either– the design is too cheap! It bothers me a great deal! The pectoral cross of a bishop is blessed– and very SACRED!! The design should be tasteful and elegant, fitting for proper public ecclesiastical use! Our bishops deserve the world’s RESPECT!!
Sorry to be so outspoken, regarding the pectoral crosses– but where is the good taste (may God forgive me, here!) of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, in ecclesiastical design?? Very sad! (Now– may God forgive me, for what I just wrote! I hope and pray not to hurt anyone– but I don’t think the Pope will read this, nor any of our prelates, or the three bishop-elects!)
Many who are convinced that heaven is not achievable might enjoy reviewing the Rite of Commendation of the Church. This prayer is often said in the Church at the end of the funeral or at the cemetery prior to burial. It calls on Christ to present the deceased to God His Father so that he may enjoy eternity in the communion of saints. Ours is a religion who’s purpose is to help us attain eternal life with God. That is what the Catechism teaches, what the tenants of the Church teach and what the Bible teaches. Those of us of a certain age were taught that we are all going to hell unless we were saintly hermits but that is not how they teach the love of God anymore.
There is no need to over compensate for the ridiculousness of being taught that one must be a saintly hermit to gain Heaven. We may want to console ourselves by looking to God’s mercy and we should. But disregarding God’s commandments and putting forth the notion that one can double-deal with the Lord and then just cry mercy is no mercy. It is misleading.
Kind of like over correction on the freeway can often lead to a worse accident.
Maintaining a balance between hope in redemption (Job 19:25ff) and on the other hand, the clear text of Lk 7:13-14 etc. is challenging: but it is hard to overlook the testimony of so many saints: St Gregory the Great (“For on the threshing floor, few are the grains carried into the barn: high are the piles of chaff burned in fire”; St. Alphonsus Liguori (“The saved are few..”); S. Augustine (“Not all, nor even a majority, are saved. They are indeed many, if regarded by themselves: but they are few compared with the far larger number of those who shall be punished with the devil.’ Then there is the compelling famous sermon of S. Leonard of Port Maurice, a tour de force of the sources.
But I think the best advise, in a short summary, is St Anselm of Canterbury’s, a Doctor of the Previous Church, not the New Church, but worth noting:
“‘If you would be sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few. Do not follow the majority of mankind, but follow those who renounce the world, and never relax their efforts day or night so that they may attain everlasting blessedness.” (S. Anselm)
Again: if Hans Urs Von Baltasar is right, that all are saved, nothing matters: live as you please. But if Jose and Joe (commenting above) are right, and people choose a lax life… well, there likely will be hell to pay.
Some of you would only support the appointment of Marcel Lefebvre as a new auxiliary Bishop in LA. Reportedly, Lefebvre is dead!
Bob, and other posters– Christ said that in order to follow Him, you must leave the world! “Let the dead bury the dead,” in fact! Christ’s teaching is very hard, isn’t it! One cannot serve two Masters– a false one, of the fallen, sinful world– and our True Master, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in Heaven! How many Christians will sincerely try to leave behind, the fallen, sinful world– and listen to Our Lord, and follow Him?? At that point, one has a hope for Heaven! That is our starting point! Our Church leaders should really try to live and preach Christ’s Truth– and nothing else!
Sadly, if people do not receive good religious instruction, and do not know how to lead a good life– it is possible, they will have very little hope of Heaven! The souls in Hell have rejected God, and His goodness and Love, and have rejected living a good life, as Christ said to do! But mortal sin that casts souls into Hell, has to be deliberate, and intentional, with full knowledge, of the evil done! The power of Almighty God is also very, very great, and no evil is bad enough, to totally overcome the goodness and love of God, and the fact that originally, He made us all, in His Divine Image!
I will continue, with my post, above. I think actually, what Fr. Barron should have said– is that most of us may have a reasonably good chance, to go to Purgatory, after we die, for further purification! Maybe he was just trying to be kind, in his position of authority, as a priest. Many people today, view Heaven, as “just a reasonably nice place to go, for nice, decent people, after death.” Like, for example, most folks we meet, at work, at church at the grocery store, the bank, the post office, etc. But of course– if we are theologically correct– no, Heaven is NOT “just a reasonably nice place to go, after death, where one is finally at peace, after a hard life, etc.” Heaven is very rare –only for purified Saints!
No matter what, we must never give up, never despair, and know that God loves us, and He so badly wants to run after His “erring sheep,” no matter what! We really do count, and God wants that sheep back in His fold! He truly loves that sheep! So– we must NEVER despair, NEVER give up! And all the Saints in Heaven, as well as Jesus Christ, and His Most Blessed Mother– are all running after all the “errant sheep,” too! And our Guardian Angels, are constantly watching over us, night and day! The “Hound of Heaven” is always on our heels– even if we do not know it!! I think many of us will be blessed, to end up in Purgatory, and then, make our way to Heaven!
I think the greatest worry, regarding these three soon-to-be-ordained auxiliary bishops– will be Msgr. David O’Connell. I think he has not changed his mind, about those statements he made, regarding married priests, and the ordination of women. I think those may be his strongly-held personal views. What a shame! Bad idea, to ordain such candidates! Perhaps he also secretly favors gay “rights,” including gay “marriage??” Too bad our Church couldn’t just promote excellent, NORMAL, faithful, ORTHODOX Catholic priests, to higher positions of Church leadership, such as the episcopacy!! Dumb Church!